The third rampage of evolutionism: evolutionary pscyhology

Even if there were inherent consequences, an idea which has been debunked every day plus sunday, what difference does it make if I can shoot it down for something else long before any consequenses can set in? IF IF IF. That is a choice right? You are the guy always going on about choice and decision. What about if people learn not only that their emotions may work similar to programming or machinery, but that that doesn't mean one has to change how one thinks and feels and acts?Indeed since it is a description of the machinery which makes you how you've acted all along, why would it suggest a reason to change at all?And how does one "take action based on treating X like machines"? I learned that my limbs generally fit into my body like ball and socket machinery, that did not mean I started swapping them out for mechanical parts, or greasing them up if they felt stiff.In the end, anyone taking a scientific finding and saying because X is like Y, I must now treat X in all ways like Y, they are most certainly having a problem with their interpretation. Science attempts to describe things as they are not as they should be. Conversely, people can and have believed emotions are not machines and manage to skillfully become assholes.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

If I know that my emotions are created via mechanisms similar to machinery then how does that change anything in how I live? Part of the feelings I have is that I can change my ways, and that I should change my ways. I can judge my actions and my feelings. The fact that they are mechanically produced would not alter their abilities.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

But I already do. We are all biochemical machines. The extent of behavior which is "predetermined" seems speculative at best, even if we are machines.The best that I think will be found is that a number of emotions or sensations as inputs to our decision making process will be predeterminable given accurate assessment of environmental stimuli.Even though machines, part of that machinery is clearly learning new programming of some sort, so yes we can "learn" moral programs not to break other machines. What would stop that?It seems to me if you really fear the outcome of people thinking they are machines and so never questioning their own actions, you should be on my side instead of your current one. You should remind people that even if true, part of their machinery is to learn and change and thereby overcome less healthy program outputs.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-17-2005 12:48 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Let me say for the record that I find discussions of free will to be nothing more than mental masturbation. As a subject it has really pulled philosophy down into a gutter.If you want to know my position, it is that free will cannot be truly known and so is useless as a matter of debate. We either have it, or we have an illusion of it that is so strong that we might as well say we have it. Even if it is purely phenomenological (that is the brain making us think we decided), what is the difference for us?Thus my position is a bit more than just a "simple" practical acceptance of free will. There are two layers.So, I believe in a mechanistic universe and yet there is free will. You see this as a contradiction, but I see your argument as a stock dilemma. We are not machines like wheels and wind up toys. We are machines which have the ability to assess, learn, and rewire at least to some degree.Those capabilities allow us to create an identity with moral rules, more interestingly rules which can be broken (based on overriding emotion based rules) or amended and strengthened (based on assessment of performance compared to goals).It is irrelevant if the mechanisms are neurons or steampipes or rule-bound spiritwires, the result is a machine that behaves according to rules, yet has the fluidity to observe and change itself.Yes I do believe that emotions and urges (they are not necessarily all emotions) underlie all animal and so human action. Anything that makes a decision has some reason for preference, or is caught in indecision. Humans have a higher capacity for indecision given the greater amount of data and introspection we are capable of maintaining.None of my moral philosophy hinges on emotions being machine driven. Morals are about action stemming from emotions and/or beliefs and not connected to what possible physical makeup emotions or beliefs have within the human mind.I return the point to you, if it is not neural machinery, then what is making the decisions? What form does it take and how does it come to a conclusion? Are there not rules binding it, even if it is spiritual in nature?As far as I can tell, at best choosing "spiritual freewill" in your stock dilemma has only pushed the question back one more step. This will be even harder for your position if you are maintaining that there are Gods than can know all and see all and created the universe. In that case spirit machine and neural machine would be inseparable phenomenon... and much much much harder wired.This message has been edited by holmes, 02-17-2005 17:43 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I do believe in cause and effect, but when the machine system is not a static hardwired system, and may have several layers including feedback options, it is not as simple as "if A then B".In a system that has rules so that it recognizes many options from one input A, many inputs which coincide with A that also have many potential outputs, can assess results of actions toward A, as well assess and change rules regarding rules, the system is fluid and can be said to have free will.It is the ability to have indecision, or make decisions knowing full well there were equally good options, where we can see free will exists even in a machine system. This may relate back to a rule which initially says "if in doubt, choose randomly", but then the rule to assess results will take the results of your action and maybe you will make a more concrete decision next time.Your rule system may also look for a temporary preference to break the deadlock. In the end it is a system of rules governing rules, which are looking to solidify to make one choice. It is the search for the proper rule structure with a recognition of many valid inputs and actions which is free will.The search is free will, the series of patterns of behavior as general rules are formed or "preferred" based on assessment of results, is identity.The human mind is not like a roullette wheel, not by a long shot. I am an evo and I am clearly arguing to you that we have free will. Thus your entire argument falls flat.Unless you are arguing that I must believe you that I have no free will and as a consequence of input A (being an evo), I must have output B (denounce free will)?Ironically, you are the only one here denying free will.One more blank statement like this which is false on its face and I will leave you to your solipsistic rambling. If you want to discuss the nature of decision in a mechanistic system, then talk to me and do not tell me what evos do or must believe. I am honestly an evo and I believe wholly in free will, or in any case that our decision-rule machinery is so fluid that even if mechanistic, one has the ability to change behavior and so "get better" at making decisions. One of the best philosophers, one of my favorites anyway, is David Hume. He has a whole paper destroying the notion of cause and effect. While it is in error, it is brilliant and worthy of understanding. In any case it does not lead to ideological madness, only a greater level of skepticism.Neither has evolution screwed up anything. People taking things they do not understand out of context and then applying them to pet projects does not reflect on those things which were taken out of context.I have free will. I am not a nazi, and indeed it appears I am one of the very few here with the balls to actually confront modern nazilike witchhunts... and I am an evo. Deal only with me and what I am saying. I am totally admitting that decision, or the force which makes a decision, is a theoretical problem for those who believe in a mechanistic (material) universe. That does not mean it is unsolvable however, and I think I have advanced a worthwhile solution.I do not exactly understand what you are advancing for the "model" of decisionmaking. I thought it was an argument for spiritual machinery, in which case I would then ask what rules it can operate under which would allow it to escape the problem material decision rule systems are tied by. If it is not this, then what is the nature of free will? What is the force which chooses?Also, I would like to know how this differs from animals in which we see them (at least some of them) making decisions.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-01-2005 05:03 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

That was a pretty precipitous drop-off. I was beginning to wonder. Yes, at any time you want to pick it back up as a topic, I am ready. Sounds like I would favor Santa Barbara, but from what you wrote I don't know if I'd wholly agree with them either. While I do not have problems with functional design per se, it certainly can lead to problems as your first example indicates. Lets pretend we are an alien race come down to the earth many centuries in the future after a nuclear biochem war wiped out most macrocellular life outside of the polar regions, or life within deep underground.What then would a wing's function to a "bird" be? It would be as an intricate pair of fins for swimming and not have anything to do with flight at all. That's right... penguins.What if they had only landed a robotic probe in a desert area and only found some blind lizards in deep caves, what would the function of the "eye" be?Given a limited time and temporal glimpse at any attribute of one species, may not give one an accurate view of what function a certain characteristic might have provided and so evolved.This is a highly accurate analogy to humans. Despite our covering the entire globe and looking rather different, we are one species, seen at one point in time. And given that our "organ" actually evolved in deep time, what particular function a PM might have evolved to "solve" may be as accurate to its use today as the penguin's wing is now to the original function of the wing in general. You are correct that this is an even greater part of the problem. That is the above issue regarding dicovery of functional adaptation is compounded in a synergistic fashion by intrinsic properties of the mind.Unlike a wing which changes based on environment over generations, the mind adjusts to environment within a single lifetime. If this was not true then every PM would be standard and trackable based purely on genetics (with some minor developmental hickups just as there are some birds with malformed wings). But it is clear that people can be changed through physical and social experiences, and have PMs formed.This is not to wholly deny that some PMs are hardwired, or that rules for PM formation could be hardwired. The problem is disentangling the hardware from the software using mere statistical correlation studies. It seems implausible to get at true underlying hardware PMs based on limited behavioral studies.It is further a bit mystifying to see grand claims made so early based on such limited studies, such that other fields are thrown right out. I have to say the short shrift treatment that sociological and anthropological research have been given by EP authors is less than scientific. Yet it seems that that is what they must do to announce the rather heavy conclusions they want to say they have reached.PMs do appear to be affected by culture. The idea that we can reach nonalterable PMs is interesting. But I have yet to see a described methodology which does this.I am sorry that I am picking on what appears to be something you are sinking a lot of time and energy into. I do not think the question you are seeking to answer is wholly bankrupt, but I would be less than honest to say I agree with the methods. I do not see how behavioralists can sufficiently prove their case. You have a lot of work cut out for you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Computers are rule systems which have set decision making guidance systems. Indeed without a program to force the computer to engage a problem, it will sit and do nothing. All of this has been programmed in by people, and it is unlikely that a computer "feels" like it is doing anything. They certainly do not have free will.Human decision making is different. I know for certain that I feel like I have free will. While I might have predispositions, I am capable of choosing anything at any time, including overriding longheld decisionmaking "rules". If everything is purely mechanistic, that is any particular decision is up to a mechanical-chemical hardwired rule system (like computers have) then there is no open decision making process at all.While that may not pose a problem for a person who simply believes in a mechanistic universe, it does pose a problem for such a person if they also believe in free will. Where does the ability to choose on single action between several choices come from, if it is not merely enough chemical stimulants determining choice A must be chosen over all others (meaning the rest were illusory as choices)?Remember, despite saying that it is a problem, I am not saying it is unsolvable. I am simply recognizing that Syamsu has a point. If those believing in a purely mechanical universe (that is all we see is the natural result of chemicals interacting as they had to given initial conditions) advance free will, then they have a theoretical problem (inconsistency) they must deal with.I hope this makes sense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I would like to see the studies which purport to show this. I do believe that there are many hardwired and hardcoded action-rule sets. It is certainly possible that on some level perhaps most decisions a person makes are external stimulus-->run through several algothrithms-->action taken, without the need for deliberation.Where I have a problem is when this is thought to be all human action. It does not match my experience, and seems contrary to evidence when we look at people going through serious deliberation and theorizing to reach wholly new rule sets and actions based on them.If it is an illusion then I would like to know why we have a program that exists merely to incorrectly observe the world around it. I mean it what you are positing is that we have a form of consciousness but it is a slave program that does nothing but incorrectly process all information as if it has been in control. Even slight free will is free will and will pose a theoretical problem. If you check my first post on this subject (free will) within this thread you will see that I said I do not like discussing free will and consider it mental masturbation, which even if that does not make it bad, its serious discussion by philosophers has helped drag philosophy in general into a gutter.You are right that it is not practical. Interestingly though, I come to the opposite conclusion of whether there is FW or not. I believe it is a moot question in that whether we do have it or not, if it is an illusion it is so strong that discussion of action without assuming FW is sort of pointless. It is not human experience. I can go one further. A system capable of multiple layers of rules with the ability and internal urge to recheck and rewrite those rules based on outcomes or predicted outcomes will have an advantage over those entities which are slave to rules that are more hardwired, hardcoded, etc.It is the urge to recheck, the ability to do so, as well as the ability to override the recheck which gives us free will. It still may be a purely mechanical system, but with that level of intricacy we have free will, specifically to create our own personality. It keeps coming up and it is a theoretical problem so it is interesting to try and solve. You can still be a materialist, and I certainly am one.I entertain a lot of unusual ideas just to see where they lead. As I freely admit it is mental masturbation, but I like to masturbate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Not only have I just gone through explaining that I do accept free will, but the very post you are replying to is one where I am explaining to someone else that i accept free will.This just goes to show that you do not want to actually understand what others are saying.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Absolutely. Coming from a martial arts background it was very interesting to discover how muscles could be trained, and afterward let go on autopilot for better results. That is even true regarding senses. I took part in blindfolded combat and was quite capable of defending myself by giving up on purely visual assessments, which did allow the brain to interfere... I had to rely on instincts or undeveloped (or overdeveloped) sensory analysis.I think we are both in agreement on this, that there are purely mechanical routines and subroutines which do not need a higher cognitive analysis to take place. They are almost entirely hardwired/coded and at best may have the higher consciousness programs turn them on. This appears to me to be an anthropomorphism, and not a real assessment. Yes it is processing many calculations based on hardcoded algorithms. I suppose there could even be some algorithms which allow for the writing of new formulas based on ongoing calculations (my own chemical modelling work allowed for some of this), but that is a bit different than how a human will eventually reach a conclusion.It may be similar, but there is ultimately more choice, or openended choice which can allow for practical abandonment of algorithms.A computer is unlikely to come out of its freeze with a decision that it wants to have someone press the a button for a while and then go get a sandwich before it moves on to the next part of the problem. Agreed, yet I think you are not going far enough. It seems to me this "command program" or "strategy program" is layered enough that for all practical purposes it is a free will program. That is to say, given enough freedom in analysis and rewriting during decisionmaking it becomes quite different than purely a machine following strict programmed rules. I also think there is a built in rule or "perpetual input" which is a drive to reassess or coordinate thinking and action. That would act as a device for an individual to continually create new rules and test them and based on results (which will differ between individuals because of differing physical natures) will result in individual "personalities".The drive to reassess and coordinate and then observe onesself, indeed "feel" some emotional (sensory) inputs regarding self, makes one autonomous. Although I cannot fully reject this possibility, I find it unnecessary to accept and rather hard to believe. How does quantum uncertainty (which will at best affect one atom on a nanosecond scale) come to be the major player in a complex multicellular process regarding decisions and selfhood?I think I'd accept the influence of lunar gravitational effects as well as other stellar phemonenon on brain chemistry mechanics, before resorting to something that tiny and temporal in nature. Even fluctuations in earth's magnetic or gravitational field, would seem to have more bearing. I'm not sure if this is completely true, but it isn't really important to me. For a guy that says he doesn't find it it important you certainly seem to be concerned about it. This seems counterintuitive to me. I can decide simply never to finish this post, or finish it and not post it, or post it and never look at your reply, or post it and then write something completely opposite within my next reply to you. I could even up and decide never to come to EvC again because I "feel" it is wasting my time and I prefer something else.Your argument is that none of these are actual options and none of the feelings I use to make my final decision are real, other than phantom images of the chemistry that forced me to make the final decision. Isn't that unnecessary given Occam's razor?Why not rather accept that choice is real and find how a mechanical system would develop the ability to choose freely based on purely mechanical inputs? Maybe it involves a rule which is beyond choice and so our free will itself is beyond choice, but that does not reduce our capacity of creating our own identities by selecting actions based on preferences or deciding to reject preferences to test new rules. That is to say it does not need to posit we do not consciously pick based on what we feel.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

I want you to set out a model where an electron flipping, or even a number of electrons flipping, will significantly change the operation of the brain (i.e. make a decision).Electrons are small bits in extremely massive compounds. It just doesn't seem plausible to me that they have that significant a role in individual choice. Humans are not. Even changes in air pressure can result in changes in mood and behavior. If we wanted to introduce some "random factor" my guess would be any individuals temoral position related to the moon at any given moment would be (or appear) pretty random. Well that is exactly why you see me talking about it here. I guess I would not go so far as to say it should not be talked about, but it really isn't productive for any professional applications in life. I think you'll want to rethink this statement. It is a pretty overt support for ID theory.Occam's razor certainly does have merit when we are discussing a theory regarding the existence of a phenomenon. While it might be possible that we are wired to believe we are actually making choices when we are not, only living purely as slaves to an existence which had to happen once the initial conditions of the universe began, this does require a more complex reasoning than that we actually have mechanisms for choice. Well it doesn't have to be supernatural, simply unknown and perhaps nonmaterial. But I am not advocating that at all, I am accepting a mechanical system.I am arguing that at a certain level of sophistication, layers and how the are wired to interact, autonomy is the result. It is not an illusion but a practical fact. Even if it boils down to one single uber-system which supervises and corrects lower systems in a rule based way which is "you", then fine. The fact that it can selfassess and redefine rules, means that it is not purely a-->b automation, which is how I would define machine brains from free will brains.One can say they discovered the physical part of the brain that is involved with making a choice and it does not bother me one bit. The question is how did it handle the inputs to formulate the resultant action. Was it reassessing and not simply following a one set rule book, or spinning a wheel, or waiting for an electron to go haywire?Rather than believing in a probability chart of action (which suggests some static form), why could it not be the assembly of probability assessments of success, and percentage assessments of coherency to past actions and understanding of self, then a portion of the brain looking for the best match between success and coherency?Sometimes of course rules can change and success may not be the part chosen for or coherence, but that will be based on extenuating circumstances or layered perceptions. Our limited ability to handle all information as well as the time we have for making our decision, will of course come into play as affecting decision.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

If you are stating that human minds are completely mechanical, with no free will then every choice you make has pretty much been a result of initial conditions plus the accumulation of minor quantum variations, which is only a slight reset of initial conditions.The concept of free will means that there is choice to move beyond simple input-->output models of behavior that are constrained by initial conditions. Oh don't get me wrong. I am not saying mechanical rule systems will not one day be able to be as sophisticated as our organic rule systems and so achieve autonomy and free will. I can't say we'll ever get technically proficient to reach that point but it certainly does not seem impossible.I am simply saying that human minds are not like the machines we currently use... not even close. They are great to analogize to for storage and processing, but the level of complexity of how it interacts with itself and the outside grants capabilities far beyond the best PCs we have.HAL was a great idea by Clarke, and maybe we'll end up there some day. Clearly 2001 was not the date for achieving it. In any case, humans (and perhaps in some respects other animals) would be a couple steps beyond that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)

Unfortunately brownian motion is not random, it only appears random to us. Remember things in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon. Nothing changes direction based on probablities, except perhaps entities at the quantum level. Only in very loose analogies. The behavior of processing data and acting on an analysis is done by both brain and computer... beyond that I think behavioral ties vanish. I was not questioning whether a single "digit" error can have an effect on a system. What I was questioning was the idea that a quantum fluctuation or "electron flip" would result in an "error" as far as a brain is concerned. I do not think it is remotely realistic.I have some experience with the chemicals involved in brain activity, and my gf is working in psych right now so I've been perusing her texts on the physical structures of the brain. Even the smallest data reading/writing structures and the chemical data itself is massive compared to the level of "glitch" you are talking about. I just do not see how it could effect the functioning of the brain.You are not the first person I have heard using that explanation, but I have yet to see anyone move beyond statements to showing it actually has merit. It looks like storytelling and handwaving to me... sounds good, but disappears under examination.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Honestly I have no idea where this sudden rage came from. I wasn't being sarcastic or condescending and was appreciative of the case you were trying to make.I am sorry if you take the fact that I have not agreed to your position as being too demanding but I am being honest when I discuss the issues I have. Yes, in a 1 and 0 system where a flip would equal a change in a 1 or zero. I am understanding this. I am totally in agreement that damage or change in a receptor would equal change that might be disproprotionate to the apparent input.A change at the quantum level simply will not result in a change at the level required for "damage" or "change" to a brain system.Maybe I can show why that is true. You can run MRIs of brains which inherently align and flip in a much greater way, atomic level particles. If the theory of quantum fluctuations actually affecting thinking was true then people should not be coming out of MRIs and I believe even CAT scans unscathed.What's more brain research is being run regarding influencing brain processes with EM fields. It does work and yet it is hardly the level of change you are talking about occuring from a much smaller alteration.Here is a simple question, why is it not possible that our identities or 'centers of free will' are portions of the brain? That is to ask, why are we not the organ which assesses success of actions versus other criteria which it built up over time (an idea of identity or values) and selects from that? Why do our conscius perceptions have to be an organ which senses the illusion of making that same decision?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agree that this can be the case, but also believe that a conscious choice may be made rather than a review of what happened. This depends on how "passive" one is being regarding the action. If you mean to say that we are more than just purely free will mechanisms, but are also the collection of mechanical routines we have no direct control over then I am in agreement. This does not sound far from my own model, so I am unsure why you took me to task so severely. I have said that my free will is bounded and that the free part is essentially a system of algorithms, which by the nature of their interaction, give us what is for practical purposes free will. Besides this collection there are plenty of other routine programs that run outside of that program. I am not sure how much but it could be much more than our "conscious" program.In the end though, most of our actions towards others and in contemplation are free from those "unconscious" motor programs.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)