|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does Evolution Have An Objective? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Dogmafood writes: What is the difference between something that has an objective and something that is merely a result of conditions? Having an objective denotes intent which requires sentience. Just because a hole holds water it doesn’t mean that it intended to. If we all are just the result of conditions what is the essential difference between you and a mud puddle? Where is the demarcation point and why is it there? I don't agree that sentience is required for objectives. For a system to follow an objective requires that (a) the system identifies the objective and (b) takes steps to achieve it based on that objective. Thus a bee involved in nectar foraging behaviour can be said to have an objective, a computer AI can be said to have an objective (sometimes) and we can be said to have objectives but a puddle has no objective because it is not acting to achieve anything. Evolution meets neither criteria so it has no objective. Or, alternatively: only entities can have objectives. Neither a puddle nor evolution are entities so neither can have an objective.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
1.61803 writes: Interesting that in a completely deterministic universe our choices would be simply a illusion. This does not follow. The universe could be completely deterministic, and we would still have free will and be making choices.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Catholic Scientist writes: But those choices would be an illusion... Why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Straggler writes: In the same sense would it be correct to say that genes have an objective? I.e. to pass themselves on. No, a gene has no concept of that objective, and takes no steps based on that concept to achieve it.
If genes can be said to have objectives then maybe evolution by natural selection could be said to have the "objective" of passing on a combination of genes suited to an environment? What would hold that objective? What steps would it be taking in response to that objective?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
1.61803 writes: How could something be a choice if it is predetermined? Why would that be relevant? We have free will if our actions cannot be predicted without knowledge of our internal state. We choose because our nervous systems are responsible for our actions. It matters not a jot whether those nervous systems are deterministic or not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Catholic Scientist writes: The outcome already existed beforehand. Well, no, it didn't. It could be predicted with total knowledge, but that's not quite the same thing. And that ability to predict has no baring on whether or not we have free will.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I have no idea why people think the unconscious mind is not also them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Of course you're still making choices, why wouldn't you be?
I can write a computer program that makes choices.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
No, I decide what choices it can make not what choices it will make. In fact, I could go further and write a completely deterministic program that makes choices I don't know what are but that's by the by.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
I don't see how the possibility of alternative choices matters. We have freewill because we decide; how we decide is irrelevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Catholic Scientist writes: That's not "completely deterministic". Yes, it is. The response depends on the inputs. Consider a chess playing AI, I would determine how it chooses it moves but not how it would respond to a particular move from its opponent.
I call shenanigans. Any learning algorithm will do this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Straggler writes: You are advocating decisions that are independent of choice? No, I'm suggesting that a choice was still made even if given complete knowledge you could predict the choice.
If there is only one predetermined path what are you deciding between? The different paths things that could have been chosen. That your means of doing that is deterministic does not effect that. Think of it like this: Environmental inputs -> you -> outcomes We're making the choice because it's the you in that sequence that is key to which outcome occurs. It makes no difference whether that you is deterministic, probabilistic or mystically something else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Dogmafood writes: Yes but that is not 'choice' in the colloquial sense. I disagree. I think it's the closest possible meaning to the colloquial sense. The colloquial sense being, of course, nonsense.
That is like 'choosing' to accept an offer that you can't refuse. No, you're really choosing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
1.61803 writes: That means you can choose to your hearts content, your choice is irrelevant. No, it's not. It's your choice that determines the path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Catholic Scientist writes: Some things aren't deterministic, like Brownian Motion or radioactive decay. Brownian motion is deterministic, it's merely chaotic. In any case, the presence of random/probabilistic/stochastic doesn't provide any better a basis for choice or free will than determinism.
So if we really are making choices then that makes us special (imo). By what mechanism do you suppose we make choices, if you reject the notion of deterministic things making choices?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024