Does Evolution Have An Objective?

Well the fact that the extract in question was lifted from an article on free-will might give some clue as to it’s relevance. But if you want it’s relevance to my point spelt out for you I am happy to do that:Whilst you might sit there conveniently proclaiming that you consider acts undertaken by your unconscious to be just as much chosen by you as any act of conscious volition those who have actually experienced unconscious control of their bodies without the usual illusion of conscious volition being involved evidently disagree. They do not consider it to be I who is choosing what to do. Why is this? I’ll tell you. It is because our concepts of self, freewill and choice are derived from, and tied to, the illusion that we are non-deterministic minds that are able to initiate cause by exerting conscious will. Our concepts of self, freewill and choice are not compatible with the fact that we are wholly deterministic input/output devices otherwise known as physical brains.In short our concepts, and the language we use to express those concepts, relate to the illusion rather than the actuality. Which is why CS and others are objecting to your use of the terms choice and freewill as being compatible with unconscious and deterministic actions that only provide the illusion of conscious volition.Whether you agree with those objecting to your use of the terms "freewill" and "choice" do you at least understand why it is that they consider your usage of these terms to be conceptually misplaced?

That is what is going on when you choose. There is no "you" without the unconscious. It just plain doesn't exist. I don't agree that the experience of the schitzophrenic is as you describe a mere lifting of the "illusion". It is a mental disorder leading to dysfunctional affects. Why do you keep interjecting non-deterministic into this? It would feel to us 100% the same whether the mind is deterministic or not. It's irrelevant. We do initiate cause, it's just that our brains (which is us) are deterministic and also that the conscious mind is a thin sliver of what is going on. I disagree. This shouldn't surprise you since I've been arguing it all thread. I understand that you're stringing together a bunch of objections that seem - to me - to be either nonsensical or absurd point-scoring rhetoric. It seems to me that every vaguely coherent objection you or CS has managed so far is tied to dualistic nonsense.Sorry.Edited by Mr Jack, : Answered another bit.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

Earlier in this thread you said that hearts made choices.Do you consider a heart to be responsible for the choices it makes?With the original OP question in mind - Do you think a heart has objectives? Archaic? Or overridingly prevalent, linguistically and culturally ingrained and arguably very necessary for any sane sense of self. Yes - That is what I am asking. So you are simply assuming that cognition can exist without consciousness. Quite a leap. But OK. Would you hold something that is cognisant but not conscious as responsible for it's choices?Can you tell us in more detail what you mean by the rather intriguing idea of "full cognition" in the absence of consciousness?

Watching this topic evolve..(there is that word again! ) Or on our survival instincts. My objective, off the cuff, is to have a comfortable life...without knocking myself out dead to get one....to do others no harm, (but to not let them do me or my family any harm either) and to somehow try and do my best...without becoming a sacrificial martyr to the next generation...unless I'm about to die...then of course they can have everything! Sounds reasonable.... Yes...we humans rspond to our environment, and we define and refine our objectives with this in mind.For many, our objective, at least financially and economically, is to provide a better life for our offspring. Much of what is said to be human greed can be explained away using this defense. One takes what they have and runs the gauntlet not for themselves so much as for their offspring. (maybe that's why I am messed up....I have no kids! ) Hmmm...I gotta brush up on terminology....one sec

quote:

---

Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen.

---

OK I see....so even if I interjected GOD into this discussion, HE or SHE could set it all up logically such that it would happen the way it was supposed to happen. Got it. [/GOD] Given that this is an entirely human-centric problem, I would say that yes, its logical to attribute much of our behavior to instinct and not to either free will or reaction to conditions. Your decision becomes a determined part of the entire equation. The question is whether our human brain/computers were foreknown or predetermined to be a part of the final answer at any given point in time or whether we were just along for the ride. I always second guess myself, but its really irrelevant given that I already made my choice.

Because it is tied to "dualistic nonsense". Because that "dualistic nonsense" forms the basis of our language and the concepts being expressed by that language. Whether as a result of intuitive feelings of self, our Judeo-Christian cultural heritage or a very necessary illusion required to keep us sane "dualistic nonsense" is exactly what the terms you are hijacking are conceptually referring to.It is you with your science savvy ways that is using them to mean something conceptually different to everybody else.

Do you think Dualism is correct?

No. Not at all.But nor do I think what is physically correct has much bearing on the conceptual meaning our language is being used to express.

Do you think the conscious part of our brain is actually making decisions or do you think that the unconscious is actually responsible for a lot of our activity?

From Message 120: Yup, and its pretty ghey to respond to an assertion that "Magic isn't real" with the argument that "Magic is real. The illusion of sawing a woman in half really is a magic trick." Further, things like Excel spreadsheets and worms are being counted as making "choices" equivalent to a conscious decision In Message 122, Mr Jack writes:

quote:

---

I understand that you're stringing together a bunch of objections that seem - to me - to be either nonsensical or absurd point-scoring rhetoric. It seems to me that every vaguely coherent objection you or CS has managed so far is tied to dualistic nonsense.

---

I think this is the source of the problem, anti-dualism, which is funny because dualism isn't even necessary for showing he's wrong.He's in a position where a completely deterministic universe is compatible with weighted conscious decisions being able to determine the outcomes. That's contradictory even without any kind of dualism.

There's nothing contradictory about that at all.

Yes! You even responded to my post where I wrote this:

quote:

---

That's certainly different that, say, which shirt I put on this morning. I figured that since it was rainy and a little chilly that I should go with the long sleeve one. When I cogitate on it, the internal state of my brain changes, and then it pops into my head that I shouldn't choose that long sleeve shirt because it was itchy last time I wore it...

---

That's obviously a different level of conscious involvement than this: So you're equivocating.... Those kinds of unconscious decision are not incompatible with complete determinism, but that's not what people are talking about with the problem with freewill. They're talking about the actual decisions that are made on the conscious level. Not really, you can still call that a choice (although, maybe "pick" would be better). But to conflate that definition with the one used in the problem with freewill isn't helping.And to then include things like worms and excel spreadsheets is just ridiculous.

Yes, I know that you incorrectly think that is true. Thank you for repeating yourself.

Okay, let's stick to the tiny number of choices that are actually made at the conscious level then.Now, what about them do you feel is incompatible with determinism?

That if you reran the universe, a different outcome could happen because the person made a different decision this time. A completely deterministic unverse would have the same outcome every time you ran it.

And that means we're not making conscious decisions because?