Sometimes I cringe when I hear people say something analogous to "evolution is a fact", because, it is not. Evolution could be said to have factual basis in some aspects, but others are based on philosophy alone. The main premise of evolution, that all life, in the material form, could be said to have decended from a common ancestor is the part I am in agreement with, because there is much evidence to support this idea. However, the proposed mechanism, natural selection, is a philosophical idea, not a fact, and the implications of it lead to some irrational conclusions.
Evolutoin is a deterministic theory since natural selection is a deterministic mechanism. There is no mention of free-will or conscious choice, in the attribution of the success, of an organism. The full attribution is placed on the inherited genes, which will determine the actions and outcome of the successful reproduction of an organism.
Some may argue that evolution does not exclude free-will since natural selection can be thought of as reffering to a group of living things, rather than an individual.
But, Darwin himself did not believe in free-will, and accepted the deterministic nature of his theory, as is mentioned in this quote: ""the general delusion about free will [is] obvious," and that one ought to punish criminals "solely to deter others"—not because they did something blameworthy.4 "This view should teach one profound humility," wrote Darwin, "one deserves no credit for anything... nor ought one to blame others." [http://www.discovery.org/a/9581]
Therefore, one who accepts evolution wholly as fact, is then agreeing to the position that they have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain. Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion.
Although 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.
Why, 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?
Of 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.
Why 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.
**BTW, thanks for taking time to read this if you have, I know, its kind of long, I tried to be concise, but had a lot to say. **
First off, it's not only natural selection that propels evolution, sexual selection plays a part as well, but I don't really see the point you're trying to make. Also, selection has been demonstrated to be a powerful cause of change, such as in artificial selection (which would be more similar to sexual selection than natural, since the best survival solution is not necessarily what's being selected for.)
Secondly, are you saying that either we have free will or we don't? Because I believe it's somewhere in the middle. The question would then be in what are we making a free choice and are we conscious that we're making a choice or are we conscious just of the results?
How do you define free will?
They put a few people in fMRI machines and saw that the brain had made a decision about 7 seconds before the person was consciously aware of having made that decision. That opens some rather unsettling possibilities for inquiry...did they have free will or not, even though they were not conscious of the processes that lead to their decision?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on December 22, 2011, 12:43:51 AM
First off, it's not only natural selection that propels evolution, sexual selection plays a part as well, but I don't really see the point you're trying to make. Also, selection has been demonstrated to be a powerful cause of change, such as in artificial selection (which would be more similar to sexual selection than natural, since the best survival solution is not necessarily what's being selected for.)
The point is that the original theory of evolution was intended to be a deterministic theory with no room for free-will.
Quote
Secondly, are you saying that either we have free will or we don't? Because I believe it's somewhere in the middle. The question would then be in what are we making a free choice and are we conscious that we're making a choice or are we conscious just of the results?
No, I don't believe it's an either/or situation. Determinism is applicable in some concepts, but I don't believe it's all inclusive.
Quote
How do you define free will?
All choices are not pre-determined by physical laws. The sense of agency, freedom of choice, is a reflection of objective reality in some circumstances, like other senses.
Quote
They put a few people in fMRI machines and saw that the brain had made a decision about 7 seconds before the person was consciously aware of having made that decision. That opens some rather unsettling possibilities for inquiry...did they have free will or not, even though they were not conscious of the processes that lead to their decision?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html)
Interesting, I've never read it, but will have to look into it.
The theory of evolution has grown and changed over the years. Darwin may have explained it a certain way, but that doesn't it mean that his version is the only "real" version. Some people claim that Darwin "recanted" the whole theory on his deathbed. It doesn't really matter, because, even if he did, it doesn't mean the theory disappeared or became irrelevant.
So, really, it doesn't matter if Darwin says that evolution has a "deterministic" nature, or not. If we buy into certain elements of evolution, it doesn't mean we have to accept everything Darwin ever said.
Personally, I've never really thought about evolution from a "philosophical" perspective, and I'm not sure that I want to, really. There are richer sources for philosophical thought, so I don't really feel the need.
The scientific fact of evolution and the theory of evolution are what they are. If you want to agrue against them, philosophy is one of many wrong tools for the job. Try using science.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
Evolutoin is a deterministic theory since natural selection is a deterministic mechanism. There is no mention of free-will or conscious choice, in the attribution of the success, of an organism. The full attribution is placed on the inherited genes, which will determine the actions and outcome of the successful reproduction of an organism.
I think you are forgetting that not all creatures have the capacity to make conscious choices and that the capacity to make conscious choice is what free will is. Intelligence is part of consciousness (and therefore free will) and how intelligent a being is plays a factor in survival. So, there is no reason to conclude that natural selection being true means free will is not possible.
I personally don't think it's possible to know if true free will exists or not. If a god is in control then we were all made to be the way we are and true free will is unlikely. If the brain really only can make one decision in a given situation then all that we are is deterministic. But there is no evidence of a god and we don't know enough about the brain to know about natural free will. So, from a pragmatic point of view, our only choice is to assume that if we feel like we are making free decisions that we are.
I think that the whole 'do we have free will' argument has greater implications for justice and law than for evolutionary theory.
I'm going to assume the decisions of an intelligent animal with a complex brain are based on individual and unique factors such as the number of neurons, connections and the weight given to different kinds of information while making a decision (partly instinctual and partly learned from past experience). It's not incompatible with natural selection acting upon a very large variety of choices that could bring many different outcomes. It's estimated that our neurons make a trillion connections. :o
But anyways, I side more with the neuroscientists on this one. The link I've provided summarises both the scientific and philosophical debate.
I just think the philosophical's side is a bit lacking because they don't really define what they mean by 'free will'. I'm assuming it's conscious choice ???
Quotethey have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain. Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion
I agree with this, to pose differently implies that something exists outside of material reality and that something has a sense of morality and thus makes choices based on that personal sense of morality.
In a way it is suggesting the existence of a soul and that if that particular soul were to be attached to a different body then it would make the same choice irregardless.
1. We can never perform this test.
2. I have no belief in a soul as a metaphysical entity, only as a highlevel concept.
3. I have no belief in anything outside of material reality. Once we find one system existing outside then I will consider others, but until then, this is a myth.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
Sometimes I cringe when I hear people say something analogous to "evolution is a fact", because, it is not.
This is an unsupported assertion. The process of evolution has been observed and documented (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html). Cringe all you want, but you're the one who is wrong, not those who say that evolution is a fact.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
Evolution could be said to have factual basis in some aspects, but others are based on philosophy alone. The main premise of evolution, that all life, in the material form, could be said to have decended from a common ancestor is the part I am in agreement with, because there is much evidence to support this idea. However, the proposed mechanism, natural selection, is a philosophical idea, not a fact, and the implications of it lead to some irrational conclusions.
Natural selection has been observed (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_26). 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.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
Evolutoin is a deterministic theory since natural selection is a deterministic mechanism. There is no mention of free-will or conscious choice, in the attribution of the success, of an organism. The full attribution is placed on the inherited genes, which will determine the actions and outcome of the successful reproduction of an organism.
Individuals can and do make choices, but evolution is not a description of the actions of individuals, but of the process by which groups of organisms change over time. You're trying to shoehorn something into the theory which is essentially irrelevant to it.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
Some may argue that evolution does not exclude free-will since natural selection can be thought of as reffering to a group of living things, rather than an individual.
I just did, and you haven't provided any basis for disputing this.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
But, Darwin himself did not believe in free-will, and accepted the deterministic nature of his theory, as is mentioned in this quote: ""the general delusion about free will [is] obvious," and that one ought to punish criminals "solely to deter others"—not because they did something blameworthy.4 "This view should teach one profound humility," wrote Darwin, "one deserves no credit for anything... nor ought one to blame others." [http://www.discovery.org/a/9581]
Why should I, or anyone else, consider Darwin's opinions on free will to be some sort of edict handed down from on high? His field was biology, and his discoveries in that field are what make him notable. His 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.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
Therefore, one who accepts evolution wholly as fact, is then agreeing to the position that they have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain. Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion.
This doesn't follow, as I explained above. Your argument on this point seems to consist of "Darwin said it, therefore any who agree with his basic concepts of the development of life must also agree with the philosophical conclusions he drew." I do not feel compelled to agree with the philosophical conclusions of Darwin, nor anyone else for that matter. You have not made a case which would support the idea that if one agrees with Darwin's understanding of mechanisms of biology, one must also agree with his thoughts on free will.
In addition, this quote your source has used is a mere cherry picking from Darwin's notebooks. His thoughts on free will were not so clear cut in favor of determinism as you would have it. If you read those notebooks rather than the Christian propagandist's selected excerpts from them you will see that Darwin's opinions on free will are much more nuanced.
QuoteFrom Charles Darwin's notebooks (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1582&viewtype=text&pageseq=1):
With respect to free will, seeing a puppy playing cannot doubt that they have free will. . .
Darwin believed that a puppy has free will, and he also believed that humans have free will. I will search through the notebooks to find the context of the quote that the site you referenced has used, and I think that I will find that in context it means something other than what you and the Discovery Institute's John West say it means.
It's late here, and I'll have to address the rest of your post some other time.
I don't remember seeing anything about "free will" in the last population genetics book I read. I would love to expand on this but, unfortunately, I don't have the time to properly address the original post. Stupid work interfering with my interwebs time.
Quote from: Asmodean on December 22, 2011, 01:17:08 AM
The scientific fact of evolution and the theory of evolution are what they are. If you want to agrue against them, philosophy is one of many wrong tools for the job. Try using science.
Science is full of philosophy. You can take all the empirical data you want, but it doesn't mean much until you apply philosophical ideas such as rationalism. Clearly you must not have read the post, since I just pointed out how your 'fact' of evolution has philosophy integrated within it.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
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.
If free will is a delusion it is a healthy one, perhaps it would aid survival.
I'm OK with the universe being deterministic, it doesn't make me feel small and ineffectual. There have been people here that suffered some anxiety because of it, maybe they were ex theists. I don't think grandiose expectations are very healthy, so I'm a mere speck from a god's perspective, so what, being a speck is OK. It seems silly, some misunderstanding of scale, zoom in on a krill and it might look scary but it would be silly to be scared of it. If you zoom out and the big picture looks scary, well that's silly too, the world as we know it hasn't gone away.
Quote from: Recusant on December 22, 2011, 02:03:49 AM
This is an unsupported assertion. The process of evolution has been observed and documented (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html). 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 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_26). 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.
Quote
...[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?
QuoteFrom Charles Darwin's notebooks (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F1582&viewtype=text&pageseq=1):
With respect to free will, seeing a puppy playing cannot doubt that they have free will. . .
Quote
Darwin believed that a puppy has free will, and he also believed that humans have free will. I will search through the notebooks to find the context of the quote that the site you referenced has used, and I think that I will find that in context it means something other than what you and the Discovery Institute's John West say it means.
It's late here, and I'll have to address the rest of your post some other time.
If that's the case then my interpretation of Darwin may be off. 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.
Quote from: Stevil on December 22, 2011, 01:33:32 AM
Quotethey have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain. Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion
I agree with this, to pose differently implies that something exists outside of material reality and that something has a sense of morality and thus makes choices based on that personal sense of morality.
In a way it is suggesting the existence of a soul and that if that particular soul were to be attached to a different body then it would make the same choice irregardless.
1. We can never perform this test.
2. I have no belief in a soul as a metaphysical entity, only as a highlevel concept.
3. I have no belief in anything outside of material reality. Once we find one system existing outside then I will consider others, but until then, this is a myth.
How about reason and meaning? Can anyone here explain the meaning of a math problem in terms of the atoms and molecules which make up the ink and paper it's printed on?
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 06:12:53 AM
Quote from: Stevil on December 22, 2011, 01:33:32 AM
Quotethey have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain. Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion
I agree with this, to pose differently implies that something exists outside of material reality and that something has a sense of morality and thus makes choices based on that personal sense of morality.
In a way it is suggesting the existence of a soul and that if that particular soul were to be attached to a different body then it would make the same choice irregardless.
1. We can never perform this test.
2. I have no belief in a soul as a metaphysical entity, only as a highlevel concept.
3. I have no belief in anything outside of material reality. Once we find one system existing outside then I will consider others, but until then, this is a myth.
How about reason and meaning? Can anyone here explain the meaning of a math problem in terms of the atoms and molecules which make up the ink and paper it's printed on?
Conceptual, not metaphysical.
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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sense) 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.
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: 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 (http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html). 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 (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_26). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf) 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics)
Hello light, I like that you cringe, because it means you have intelectual discomfort, and are on the right track.
Your post, and your argument, all hinge on definitions. You open a can of worms by calling evolution a fact, "fact" is a very narrow word useful in only narrow confines, like "chicago is a city". Evolution is indeed a theory, but theory does not mean "untested idea" but broad explanatory system used to describe, explain and predict wide ranging phenomena, in this case "evolution" is a theory that explains speciation, variation, and the common ancestry of all life (at least).
When you say natural selection is a philosophical idea, not a fact, you are saying nothing. Everything is a philosophical idea, and such a big idea like natural selection, being a system description cannot be a fact. "Can thunderstorms, or learning to play golf be a fact?". Until someone comes up with an alternative explanation (not god) for the evolution of species (which is a fact) then we stick with Darwin. So far, 150 years later, the age of Darwin alive and kicking with no alternatives anywhere.
When you go into the whole determinism and free will, you raise interesting points. The era of this debate was 100 to 200 years, ago, so you are a bit late. (Descartes, Locke, Hume, etc) The argument has been had and settled, and philosophers have moved on to other things. It ends up that you have free will only in some small daily matters (stream of consiousness) and the rest (your birth, genes, demographics, etc) were determined without your help. It has always been this way, although religion teaches us that we are responsible for everything and helps fill jails (and hell, I suppose). To say there is no free will is to say that someone who robs a store needs help to become rehabilitated (humanism), not lots of jail (anti-humanism), becuase that person is following the trajectory of their life, and society can help then change that trajectory (or just jail them)
Evolution NEVER occurs to groups -- only to individuals. This has been long argued and settled, with group selection being related to some very narrow special conditions. Individuals are born with variation, and struggle to survive and have kids, not groups. Group evolution is "pop evolution", a condition cured by lots of reading.
The whole "agency" issue has already been covered, see Dennett. But you are kind of down the wrong road. A bee's life is largely determined, but that bee still chooses which flower to visit. My life has been largely determined but I still choose what words to type and to go to work. Like I said, you are in control of all the day to day stuff (what is defined as your life). To say we have no free will sounds dramatic, like saying we are robots, but within having no choice but to say "i'm hungry" we pick what to eat, so its not so bad. "Agency" as you call it is really just consciousness (that's all ...) or what has been called a product of intentional stance.
We don't have to derive all ideas as if we were the first generation, becuase we stand on the shoulders of giants. These giants have gotten use where we are, intellectually, and it is our job, if we can, to get humanity further, but we have to actually stand on the shoulders of giants, by reading: Mill, Darwin, Russell, Dennett, Dawkins. Show your free will by reading, learning, understanding, because you can.
PS sorry if sound patronistic, I can't help it ...
Individuals don't evolve. Individuals are the subjects of natural selection. A gene pool evolves due to selection pressures on variations of the individuals within the gene pool. A gene pool of a sexually reproducing organism comprises that group of individuals capable of mating and producing viable offspring.
Quote from: Light on December 22, 2011, 12:30:45 AM
Sometimes I cringe when I hear people say something analogous to "evolution is a fact", because, it is not.
Err, except, of course, that it
is a fact. It has been observed occurring. The theory of evolution is an explanatory framework dealing with all the observations, hypotheses, etc, pertaining to that fact, but evolution itself occurs. This is a fact.
QuoteEvolution could be said to have factual basis in some aspects, but others are based on philosophy alone. The main premise of evolution, that all life, in the material form, could be said to have decended from a common ancestor is the part I am in agreement with, because there is much evidence to support this idea. However, the proposed mechanism, natural selection, is a philosophical idea, not a fact, and the implications of it lead to some irrational conclusions.
Natural selection isn't merely a proposed mechanism, it's an observed process (or, more accurately, it's the umbrella term for a group of processes, including predation, reproduction, extinction, etc).
QuoteEvolutoin is a deterministic theory since natural selection is a deterministic mechanism.
Quite the opposite! Indeed, in the early days after Darwin published his work, it was broadly accepted by people of the ilk who deny it today. The early rejections of it were all by physicists, because Darwin had introduced a new element into science, namely random factors. The physicists of the time rejected the role of chance in the cosmos, as pretty much all of them were Laplacian determinists. In fact, I've heard it convincingly argued that Darwin is indirectly responsible for the formulation of Quantum Mechanics, because it wasn't until indeterminacy was in play in physics that such a formulation was possible.
QuoteThere is no mention of free-will or conscious choice, in the attribution of the success, of an organism. The full attribution is placed on the inherited genes, which will determine the actions and outcome of the successful reproduction of an organism.
Well, several things wrong here. While determinism absolutely nullifies the idea of free will, the lack of free will doesn't necessarily entail determinism. Further, success isn't only dependent on genes, because that would be silly. Firstly, an allele that is deleterious in one environment may be advantageous in another. The obvious example here is the sickle gene. In some environments, the sickle gene confers an increased immunity to malaria. However, in environments in which sunshine is depleted, such as cloudy Northern climes, it can result in decreased vitamin D uptake, as well as causing other issues.
Further, even in a given environment, carrying a deleterious allele doesn't necessarily mean that one won't reproduce or that it won't be passed on. The key is that fitness is differential. This all seems to be rooted in the trope 'survival of the fittest', which is a horribly inaccurate description of how natural selection actually works. Properly stated,, it should be 'survival of the sufficiently fit, on average'.
Natural selection has to be looked at in two ways to be fully appreciated. The first is from the perspective of the population, at which level the effects of selection are seen. At this level, NS is most definitely not random, where 'random' means specifically 'statistically independent', because it can be probabilistically quantified. At this level, we see that, on average, advantageous alleles are selected for, in the form of being passed on to future generations with a statistical weighting. We also see that, on average, deleterious alleles are selected against, in the form of not being passed on to future generations, again with a statistical weighting.
The second way to look at NS is from the perspective of the individual organism, at which level selection actually operates. From this perspective, NS is random. The particular selection pressure that an individual organism will succumb to or indeed evade, is statistically independent, thus random. The organism with an allele that allows it to evade a particular selection pressure has statistical significance, but the means of checking out without issue are many and diverse, and which particular pressure said individual will fall prey to (pardon the pun) can only be treated in the broadest of terms.
QuoteSome may argue that evolution does not exclude free-will since natural selection can be thought of as reffering to a group of living things, rather than an individual.
But, Darwin himself did not believe in free-will, and accepted the deterministic nature of his theory, as is mentioned in this quote: ""the general delusion about free will [is] obvious," and that one ought to punish criminals "solely to deter others"—not because they did something blameworthy.4 "This view should teach one profound humility," wrote Darwin, "one deserves no credit for anything... nor ought one to blame others." [http://www.discovery.org/a/9581]
Again, Darwin stating that he didn't believe in free will does not mean that he thought his theory was deterministic. Lack of free will and determinism are not directly synonymous, as described above.
QuoteTherefore, one who accepts evolution wholly as fact, is then agreeing to the position that they have no free-will and their life is imprisoned in the deterministic casual chain. Their awareness of conscious choice, is simply a delusion.
Dealt with above. As it happens, I'm fairly sure that we don't have free will. Indeed, the question is whether we actually have will, free or otherwise. There is good evidence to suggest that our will is most certainly not free, in the form of recent experiments in a phenomenon known as 'priming'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1OVhlRpwJc
Note that this still doesn't entail determinism, not least because determinism cannot exist, as demonstrated by Werner Heisenberg and experimental validations of the uncertainty principle.
I'm going to ignore the rest for the moment, because a) it seems to be rooted in the same misunderstandings as above and b) I have things to do. If anybody feels that the above does not sufficiently address any of the issues raised in the OP, let me know and I'll gladly come back to it.
Quote from: Jose AR on December 23, 2011, 01:08:47 PMdeterminism and free will, interesting points. The era of this debate was 100 to 200 years, ago, so you are a bit late. (Descartes, Locke, Hume, etc) The argument has been had and settled, and philosophers have moved on to other things. It ends up that you have free will only in some small daily matters (stream of consiousness) and the rest (your birth, genes, demographics, etc) were determined without your help. It has always been this way.
to put it artistically
we enter on a boat at a point on a river bank. the flow of lifetime goes a certain way (Tao). The launchers have projected a travel duration and a possible exit point range furhter downstream. We can paddle and it is ineffective as to the movement direction. However, we can paddle or not, sit facing front or backwards or sideways. relax or struggle towards the afforementioned four directions. we can also crash the boat early aside prior to term.
I fully agree in intellect and intuition that there is both determinism and free will. Jose, a head bow, you spoke to my respect.
Light,
the human will, free and otherwise, is shaping, taking part in the natural selection processes for Homo Sapiens sp. as well as with plenty other species as well
philosophically
the last fart of human scum on this planet is potentially a god, for in him neural factors that can make me rich, exist - just joking
I find beautiful randomness and chaos in the way the appropriate route is forged into "nothing random"