Does Evolution Have An Objective?

In the same sense would it be correct to say that genes have an objective? I.e. to pass themselves on. 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?I admit it is a pretty tenuous use of the word "objective"..... But I am not exactly sure what the OP is looking for here.

You previously used the example of a bee foraging for nectar as an objective. Does a bee have a concept of that objective? Isn't it more unconscious instinct?You previously used the example of an AI computer having an objective. Does the computer have a concept of that objective? Hold that objective conceptually? I don't think a gene could. But I am not sure that bees or currently existing AI computer programmes can either. Passing itself on successfully I guess.Personally I am unconvinced that objectives can be assigned to entities that cannot consciously hold them. But with your bee and computer example I thought you were taking a different approach.

If one's actions are immutably predetermined before any decision or choice has even been made then there is no choice at all is there? There is just the illusion of a "decision" or "choice" because it would be impossible to do anything other than than which was predetermined.In a strictly deterministic world freewill is an illusion because choice is an illusion. No?Edited by Straggler, : Grammar

Cheers for the link. I find myself very conflicted about freewill. It seems just so inherently obvious that we do possess freewill of a type that seems incompatible with any serious thought about the matter. I suppose the "obvious" should be rationally rejected. But......... I get that. I think. But Mr Jack seems to be talking about a much more stringent form of determinism where imperfect information is not the problem. If "total knowledge" of all things past and present results in the ability to derive immutable knowledge of all things future I still don't see how "choice" is anythng but an illusion?There are no options to choose. There is just the predetermined . No?

You are advocating decisions that are independent of choice? If there is only one predetermined path what are you deciding between?

Hmmmm. This seems a bit like saying that I have "chosen" to live on Earth rather than Mars.The fact that it is in effect impossible for me to live on Mars would, by most common usage, make the use of the word "choice" somewhat inappropriate here. The fact is I quite like the idea of living on Mars under certain practical conditions.If it is imposible to choose differently I would dispute that a "choice" has genuinely been made. But at this point I guess it all boils down to the semantics of what one means by the word "choice". I am operating on a sort of instinctive and unstated definition (which I hope you will "get" even if not subscribe to) but I appreciate this may not count for much.

Isn't this a bit like saying that my heart "chooses" to keep beating?Aside from the fact that my brain doesn't feel the need to provide me with the illusion that it is "me" conscioulsy causing my heart to beat there seems to be very little difference between my beating heart and my responding brain as you have described things.Is that how you see it?

That seems to be what is being advocated here. And aside from the argument that I don't like it (which I wholly accept is no real argument at all) I have little to counter it with. Yeah sure. Without the navel gazing we can unthinkingly accept the illusion and just take things at face value. In any practical sense I would imagine we have to do this because there isn't really any practical alternative anyway.But whilst it very much seems to "me" that I am sitting here navel gazing about the illusion of freewill with you because the consciousness that is "me" has decided to do so and is constructing these words with all the conscious intent and freewill I can muster - Evidence suggests that I am fooling myself.I am going to exercise my freewill and write "pooglebumps" now. For no other reason than that I can.POOGLEBUMPSBut apparently this seeming act of pointless freewill is my brain doing things to convince the conscious narrative that I think of as "me" that it can randomly and entirely spontaneously/unpredictably decide to do stuff like that.Seriously - Don't you find the whole idea of the sort of non-freewill that is being proposed here an absolute mindfuck? I do.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

So as far as you are concerned my heart is "choosing" how and when to beat in the same way that my brain is "choosing" what to do independently of my conscious self. But when people talk about "choice" they are talking about what they believe (rightly or wrongly) to be conscious decisions between consciously assessed options. They are not talking about involuntary unconscious actions like heart beats. Yet surely you can see the difference between the mental processes that appear to be involved in "choosing" how your heart will beat and choosing what colour shirt to wear? Well unless you are different to everyone else I have ever communicated with it seems to you that you have options which you can consciously pick at any given moment in time. And those conscious decisions between consciously assessed options are what dictates (so it seems) the path of "you" through life.This is the illusion. And I don't really see how you can just claim ignorance to the illusory nature of that if things are genuinely wholly deterministic.

So you think consciousness rather than choice is the illusion? Are you not a conscious being? It isn't at all irrelevant if one considers (rightly or wrongly) choices to be acts of conscious volition rather than deterministically predefined acts that operate independently of conscious will. Would you consider yourself to be equally responsible for an act of crime undertaken whilst unconsciously sleepwalking as you would if undertaken whilst fully conscious?Whether you agree with it or not can you understand why someone would very probably claim that "I didn't know what I was doing" in such a situation?Yet deterministically speaking there is no real difference between the two acts at all is there?

And it is exactly this that myself and (I believe CS) are referring to when we talk about freewill being illusory as a result of determinism. I know. I am not disputing the validity of the evidence. I just don’t like the consequences of that evidence. It feels to me as if I am consciously, freely and spontaneously choosing what to do. This is the illusion of freewill I am talking about. I am not for one moment disputing that the self is made up of both the conscious and unconscious. What I am disputing is your use of the term choice as being valid to acts that lack conscious volition or where conscious volition is an illusion. How is being aware different from being conscious in this context? Are you not just equivocating with a subtle change of words here? But previously you said that consciousness was largely irrelevant to choice now you seem to be saying that we cannot be held responsible for our choices unless we are conscious and aware when we make them.This doesn’t seem to add-up. We might hold them responsible for getting themselves into that state in the first place. But anyone sleepwalking or who is acting under the influence of drugs as a result of being spiked would be acting under diminished responsibility in the eyes of the law.

But when people use the word "choice" this isn't really what they mean is it? This is where the objections are stemming from. But by calling it "choice" we seem to be acknowledging that choice refers to something different to what we think we mean when we use the word "choice". That we don't mean what we mean. Which is absurd.If words obtain conceptual meaning through use then maybe we do need a different word to make the distinction between the concept of choice as a result of conscious volition (even if this is a fantasy concept) and those acts which are not the result of conscious volition. Why not retain the word "choice" for what we generally conceptually mean and invent a new technical term for acts that have the illusion of choice but which are wholly deterministic?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But what psychology teaches us and what we internally believe ourselves to be doing are at odds with each other. The objections you are facing here are to do with your insistence that we apply that same word "choice" to acts that merely appear to be the result of conscious volition but which are in fact nothing of the sort. In general parlance "choice" is an act of conscious volition. I think most would apply that ability to cats and dogs as reasonably sentient creatures but not to things like plants. But drawing a definite line between entities able to make conscious choices and ones that are mentally incapable of that is a bit like trying to define the line between life and non-life. It is far from black and white.But but but but....If the evidence of psychology is correct the whole thing is an illusion anyway. Whether applied to us, cats, dogs, nematodes or anything else. The interesting question would then be whether other less intelligent creatures (e.g. cats and dogs) are fooling themselves in the same way that humans are. Again - This seems like a false distinction. Lack of consciousness and lack of awareness in terms of "knows about, can take into account, etc." are one and the same thing in this context aren't they? Is it possible to be cogent without being conscious? If not it would seem that consciousness must play a far more significant role in "choice" than you have thus far implied.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Yes. And that is where the problem lies. Because when people talk about "choice" or exerting "free-will" they are talking about what it is they believe they are doing. They are talking about acts of conscious volition. They are NOT talking about unconscious deterministic predefined acts over which they exert little or no conscious control. Words derive conceptual meaning from usage. Whether "choice" as it is believed to be is a false concept or an illusion is irrelevant to the conceptual meaning of the term.I would suggest that a new technical term is required which specifically means acts that have the illusion of choice but which are actually wholly deterministic. "Determinoice" or "Path of reactive option". I am sure others can come up with a suitable term. From wiki on sleepwalking:

quote:

---

In December 2008, reports were published of a woman who sent semi-coherent emails while sleepwalking, including one inviting a friend around for dinner and drinks.

---

In terms of volition do you see any significant difference between her actions then and you typing now? If conscious volition plays no part in either scenario then deterministically speaking what is the difference between her actions and yours? So consciousness is largely irrelevant to choice but one cannot be held fully responsible for one's choices unless conscious. Can you see why that might seem like equivocation?

They are carrying out the (divine?) will of the collectively conscious entity that we know only as "Microsoft Office"........Don't tell me your spreadsheets don't sometimes act as if they had a mind of their own? The conclusion is obvious.