update: freedom found, natural selection theory pushed aside

Hi, Syamsu. I think the term you want is either "free will," "free choice," or "free agency." Last I checked, this claim was wrong. I'm pretty sure you just made this up. Or, that you just copied it from somebody who just made it up.If scientists deny the existence of free choice, how come we're all frickin' liberals!? I'm a little confused by this reasoning. Are you suggesting that our free will goes so far as to control our physical being? Like, we can control whether we're born autistic or blind? Or, are we just slaves to that law of genetics? Clearly, we are just slaves to the law of gravity, aren't we?Forgive my scriptures in the science forum, but I think this is quite appropriate: Apparently, the will of God (which I translate as: the laws of nature) controls our destiny, not us or our parents.----Or, is it the genes themselves that are supposed to have anticipation abilities? How come they sort independently and are inherited pretty much randomly, then?I'm not sure how any of this applies to "freedom" or contradicts natural selection.

---

Darwin loves you.

But, Taborsky does!!?? Here is a link to the abstract of the actual paper reported in the news article I provided in my last post. It is an experiment that quite definitively shows either the existence of free will, or (as the author would have it), something that just manifests itself pretty similarly to free will.In contrast, your article from Taborsky is just Edwina rambling on about her concept, its associated terminology and the math that would apply if it were true, without once presenting any evidence that it actually is true, or even doing an experiment to test the idea. How the hell is that "established," in any sense of the word? I don't have any idea what you're talking about here.

---

Darwin loves you.

Okay, here’s my critique of a small, but crucial, bit of Edwina’s model: Except, that the current model (Neo-Darwinian Evolution) does not, in fact, mandate the weeding out of all the other options, as she claims it does. In fact, it promotes diversity, which is why we see millions of different kinds of animals, and not just the narrow range of “best solutions” that her misconception of natural selection would produce. Yes, if the biological system had been smart enough to use her model, it would not have to waste time and energy in coming up with myriad random unworkable solutions to envrionmental requirements. But, the curious thing is that the biological system actually does waste time and energy coming up with myriad random unworkable solutions to environmental requirements. Doesn’t this suggest that the biological system is not using her model? And, indeed, we see many lineages that did, in fact, go extinct long before a functional solution was randomly generated. Isn’t that interesting?We also see that populations with a wider range of genetic diversity tend to fare better in the wild, not because they were smart enough to anticipate the future, but because they have a higher likelihood of containing a mutation in their ranks that could have a useful function in the face of a new challenge. This is like a “God of the Gaps” idea now: natural selection works, except where we haven’t proven that it can work yet. The problem comes in right here: She said “selected.” Isn’t that the Darwinian mechanism?And here: What the Neo-Darwinian answer to this problem is not is that the mutation has to happen in response to the new environmental challenge. The Neo-Darwinian mechanism works based on the random diversity that already exists in the population (remember, despite Edwina’s claims, that diversity is not weeded out by natural selection). And, if the diversity that already exists does not contain an adequate response to the new challenge, the lineage most likely does go extinct.It seems to me that Edwina doesn’t believe in extinction. That’s stupid.Though, I kind of do like the name “Edwina”: maybe I’ll name my daughter that.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. So, instead of arguing against my critique, you're just going to blow it off as irrelevant? Does this actually make sense in Dutch? Because I have next to no idea what you're trying to say in English here. Wait. Because freedom is real, creation had to have happened earlier? Are you sure you didn't leave out a few important steps in the middle somewhere? Warning: the next paragraph involves sarcasm.You're right. I only believe in natural selection because I don't know what you mean when you say "decision process." My belief in natural selection has absolutely nothing to do with all the evidence for it. Nothing whatsoever.----Not only have you just blown off my critique without even addressing what it said, but you have now explained your position with at least three non sequiturs.I think I've wasted enough time on this.Bye, Syamsu.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Mike. I've started a thread here to discuss whether evolution is based on either a pattern of evidence or a philosphical worldview.This is the kind of thing that shows when somebody is basing their search for truth on a worldview, and not on a pattern of evidence: Please bring this to my thread and show how you think evolutionists do the same.

---

Darwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu.Straggler beat me to most of the stuff I wanted to say, but I still have one thing left. Are you suggesting that the "exogenous" laws typically used by physicists are not successful at predicting or explaining the behavior that they see in physical objects? Where do you see discrepancies?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. I don't understand this.How do you apply Newtonian gravity "in an anticipative way"?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. Can we just assume, for the time being, that there is no grand scientific conspiracy against everything that you, personally, hold dear in the world? Please? None of your opponents is assuming that your and Edwina's entire intent with this anticipation theory is just to ruin our world view, so why can't you at least extend the same courtesy to us? Are you saying that scientific theories give Mankind a higher status in the universe than your "tool for creationism" does? Doesn't that also put anticipation theory at odds with creationism somehow?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. What decisions do these toothbrushes make?When do they make these decisions?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu Let me interrupt here for a second. This is one of the major problems with your idea: it does not make predictions. If it does not put forward a prediction, we cannot run an experiment to determine if the theory works, because experiments test theories based on their predictions.Okay, continuing with the quote: You have mentioned alternatives many times in this thread.You are saying that possible alternatives are proof for "conscious" decision-making?So, when I flip a coin, the coin decides whether it will land on heads or tails?So, let's design a coin-flipping machine that will apply the exact same amount of force and spin to each coin flip. And, let's say that it flipped 100 coins, and that 97 of them landed on tails. Would you take the three that landed on heads as evidence for "freewill" in the system?-----P.S. Please use "quote" or "qs" boxes in your replies, because some posts you respond to contain more than one question, and it's sometimes hard to tell which question you're responding to.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. This is the problem I see with your theory of freewill: deviation from the expected result does not imply the presence of a choice. It could be just as easily ascribed to random deviations in starting conditions. Coins flipping in the air are subject to the amount of force applied by the thumb (or mechanism), the amount of spin applied, the exact placement in relation to the flipping mechanism, air currents, maximum height over the final landing surface, etc. Even if I were to design a perfect coin-flipping machine, there is no way that I could account for all the possible variables.I see no reason to believe that it isn't these confounding factors that result in variable responses, instead of an anticipatory action of the system itself. As Straggler has already asked you to do multiple times, please explain to me how you could discern between freewill and the effects of random variables?-----P.S. Please use "quote" or "qs" boxes in your replies, because some posts you respond to contain more than one question, and it's sometimes hard to tell which question you're responding to. Push "peek" at the bottom of the message, or check "peek mode" under "Text of message you'r replying to" on the "Reply to Message" page if you don't know how to do "quote" and "qs" boxes.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. So, you're saying that anticipation theory predicts the results, even if the system is not free?But, cause-and-effect theories also predict the results very well, even if the system is free.So, how do you tell which is right, and which is wrong? So far, given that both predict the results, parsimony suggests we should lean towards cause-and-effect, so anticipation theory is still at the disadvantage.-----If you don't use "quote" or "qs" boxes, people have to go back through the thread to find out what you're responding to. That's rather annoying.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. This is all positively wonderful, but I hope you realize that you still haven't actually said anything yet.Here's how I paraphrase what you said: "The way to tell is to look at evidence, form a testable principle, and see if it works. And, when you do, you'll find out that I'm right."When I asked you how to tell them apart, I was really looking for something more case-specific than that, rather than an oversimplified restatement of the scientific method along with a half-cocked reassuranc that it works. I am a scientist, and I know how to put together an experiment and test a hypothesis.What I do not know is what physical, observable evidence is better explained by freewill than by cause-and-effect, and why this particular evidence is better explained by freewill. And you, sir, have refused to tell me this. All you have done is tell me that such evidence exists.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu.

1. I don't see any evidence presented here. You're still asking me to come up with my own evidence. I'm asking you to present some specific evidence, because I don't even have a point of reference to understand what you're talking about when you say "my experience of freedom."
   ​
2. I'm not sure I understand how alternatives automatically translate into freedom. It sounds more like a redefinition of "freedom"/"freewill" than a change in the laws of science.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, Syamsu. As much as you want to believe it, I should point out to you that "the alternatives are in the future" is an ambiguous phrase to which I am having trouble ascribing real meaning. When a person, such as myself, asks for clarification of your idea, you need to use new words instead of saying it the same way that you've been saying it for a hundred posts now. Obviously, those words have failed to hit home: repeating them again will not magically change that.Let me see if I can guess what you mean.For me, I just cannot see how an alternative could be anywhere but in the future, anyway. But, as I'm sure you know, the “decision” always has to be made in the present. If anything defines "the present," then the making of decisions is it.Since Dubois’ theory is called “anticipation,” I’m assuming that it involves some sort of foreknowledge of the future as the basis of decisions. This sounds very similar to a recent thread started by Randman about front-loading, which is the idea that organisms were originally created with the ability to pre-adapt to conditions they would meet in the future.It also brings back memories of my first month here on EvC. One of the first threads I ever participated in here was Quetzal's Teleological Science thread. In that thread, we threw out a lot of evidence that we would expect to see if evolution was following an anticipatory (or teleological) pattern.Tell me if any of this stuff is related to your “anticipation” idea.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.