Does Evolution Have An Objective?

Because making a conscious decision means that you could have chosen something else if it happened all over again, ergo if it was completely deterministic and you could not have chosen something else if it happened all over again then you're not making a conscious decision.

In reality, it never happens all over again. What happens is that you make a choice, and the consequences of that choice happen, why do you think that determinism in decision making makes it not a choice? You are still considering the various options and selecting one.

I've pretty much exhausted the effort I'm going to put into repeating the same points and definitions of words to you. I could simply copy and paste from previous posts or you could just go read them again.

Yes, I've been feeling that way for most of this thread.

I totally agree with you that the unconscious is responsible for the vast majority of our activity and that conscious decision making is largely an illusion.This is exactly why freewill can be accurately described as an illusion. Because the common conceptual meaning of freewill is derived from the illusion of non-deterministic conscious volition rather than the unconscious and entirely deterministic scientific actuality you keep referring to.Are you going to respond to Message 123Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Lets try this analogy, pretend the universe is a row of set up dominoes. Reality is unfolding as each domino is causing the other to fall. This is a deterministic system, nothing is left to chance, and the final outcome is already known before a single domino is tipped.
How is it possible for one of the dominoes to choose any other course, given the course has already been set from the start?
The domino falls and tips the one in front to fall, he may in his little domino brain as he is falling think, " I believe today I will fall forward and tip the domino in front of me over." That is the illusion of his choice. But in reality his choice was already decided. There was no other options, there was nothing to decide or choose.In contrast: Reality may behave as several probabilities or domino chains all set up with multiple paths, multiple ramps and dead ends and jumps. In that scenario there are things that can happen that are affected by choice. In that scenario a choice is truly made.Edited by 1.61803, : to add contrast

If those redefining freewill to be compatible with determinism were to make it clear that they are not talking about real freewill in the same way that an illusionist like Derren Brown makes it clear that he is not doing real magic a whole heap of semantic miscommunication could be avoided.

Reality is not a set of dominoes. It's a lot more complex than that.As I said earlier I consider that Cavediver's spreadsheet, and my nematodes, are making choices. Why? Because they consider inputs and select outputs based on those inputs. This, it seems to me, is what a choice is. There's nothing about the nature of choice that requires that mechanism for choosing not be deterministic.If, by analogy, you set up a system of dominoes with two entry lines of dominoes, and two lines leading - one going left and one going right. And you then design the system of dominoes such that if both entry lines are knocked down only the left exit line falls, and if only one entry line falls the right exit line falls then as far as I am concerned you have made a system of dominoes that makes a choice.Note that none of this requires any particular domino to either choose, or behave in a manner that is any way non-deterministic.

Not yet, no. It seems to me that most of this thread has been spent in unproductive back and forth and I don't think going and starting another example is going to help until we get to the bottom of our disagreement. I will answer it later if this is acceptable to you? Okay, so you agree with me that dualism doesn't exist, and that the unconscious brain is important to our decision making.Now, when I say "I chose to have Cornflakes for breakfast this morning" do you think that statement has any actual meaning? Any bearing on reality?I do. I think what I've described there is as real an event as saying "the iron ball fell to the ground, accelerating at 9.8 metres per second per second". I made a choice. That choice resulted in me eating cornflakes, there being less cornflakes in the packet, another dirty bowl, etc, etc.So, if the choice is real. What am I describing by that choice? Well, it seems to me that I'm describing what actually happened. Which is that neurons fired, the unconscious did some stuff that I'm not really aware of, my brain state shifted and I ended up taking a particular course of action that caused various events to occur. This isn't a different choice, it's just a better understanding of the same choice.When we talking about vision, we still use the word vision when we talking about photoreceptors working in the eyes, the pre-coding done by neurons connecting by photoreceptors and processing done by the brain. Why, if we use the same word for the experiential side of vision and the explanatory side of how vision works would we not do the same with choice?

I am absolutely talking about real freewill. I do not consider freewill to be an illusion.

I have no problem with this except to say if the system is designed such that there is no way to know which "choice" a domino will choose then this is not a fully deterministic system. Unless I am misunderstanding what for all these years the word deterministic means.
What you have described is a system that has within it's design incorporated choice in the form of two options that it is unknown which will take place until a choice is made. Free will.
I do agree with you that it does not take a living organism or conciousness to make a choice. A flat worm, or computer program or a domino can make a choice. I just think something that is already pre-determined negates choice. Yes the thing can choose, but it's choice was already made apriori Sure it does, the fork in the road is ahead and the domino can either knock down both entry lines and the left path is chosen, or the domino can knock down only one entry line and the right path is chosen. It seems to me the fact that there is no way to know which one will be actualized until it happens would suggest a non determined choice. It could be the universe is set up like a series of possibilities and probable outcomes that once that course of action is taken reality unfolds in a deterministic fashion until the next cascade of actions comes up.
But again this is not fully deterministic.What in your opinion does the word fully deterministic mean? Does it mean the outcome is still unknown? Or does it mean the outcome is known "pre-determined" and if so how can something choose when there is but one outcome? Is that not a contradiction?Edited by 1.61803, : added the word Fully

It's entirely possible to know. It's still making a choice. Choice is not equivalent to free will. I would not say that the domino system has free will, only that it is making a choice. Choice is necessary for free will, obviously, but it's not sufficient. I think the notions of pre-determined and known/unknown are somewhat awkward. Pre-determination only really makes sense if you're talking about something actually doing the pre-determining. And it's quite possible that the only way to determine what a deterministic system will do is to actually run it.I prefer to think of determinism as meaning that everything happens in a way that it exactly determined by its initial conditions.But this is quibbling over wording. The only reason there is only one outcome is because that is the outcome the chooser chooses. A different chooser, or even same chooser at a different time or under different conditions, might choose a different one of the possible outcomes.

Freewill and choice. The common meanings of these words are not derived from deep philosophical thought or the latest scientific research. These words and their meanings are derived from our experience. And our experience is that we are capable of initiating conscious will to make conscious decisions that are not wholly determined by prior events. Regardless of whether this experience is illusory or not - This is what the words freewill and choice mean to all but a few philosophers and scientists who use more precise and technical definitions for their own precise and technical reasons.If you want to point out that this common conceptual meaning is a bit woolly, incoherent even, around the edges — I am not going to disagree with you. But so are lots of human concepts. I would even go so far as to say that if we limited ourselves only to concepts that held up to rigorous philosophical analysis and scientific evidential consistency that there wouldn’t be many human concepts left (existence and solid and now spring to mind as immediately problematic).So asserting that freewill and determinism are wholly compatible is not a very helpful stance. Instead it should first be acknowledged that the common conceptual meaning of freewill is NOT compatible with determinism. Then more technical or precise definitions that are compatible can be presented along with the reasons one might want to adopt these definitions in place of less precise and more intuitively derived ones.That, to me, seems like the reasonable approach to this whole issue.

Whatever you "choose".... But I still think there are major inconsistencies in your position on what does or does not make choices and what is or is not responsible for those choices. Yes. I think your use of the word "choice" is misplaced. If determinism is true then your "choice" did not direct reality in the way that genuine freewill implies. Instead your "choice" was dictated by preceding events over which you have no control.

No one has power over the facts of the past and the laws of nature.

If determinism is true then no one has power over the fact that the facts of the past and the laws of nature entail every fact of the future.

Therefore your "choice" of cornflakes was dictated to you by past events over which you had no control.

​

Thus there was no "choice" made by you at all.

​

Mr Jack writes:

​

Why, if we use the same word for the experiential side of vision and the explanatory side of how vision works would we not do the same with choice?

​

Because, whilst it might make absolute scientific and very probably even philosophical sense to do that, this is not what people actually mean when they use the word "choice" in the context of freewill. Hence the ongoing, multiple and relentless objections to your usage of that term in this thread.

​

Words gain conceptual meaning through use. If you are using them differently to everyone else then, regardless of the superior coherence or evidential basis of your use, you are the one who needs to make clear why it is you are using it differently to it's common conceptual meaning. And in this case (IMHO) concede that the common conceptual meanings of "choice" and "freewill" are NOT compatible with determinism.

Ok so far. The reason there is only one outcome in a fully deterministic system is because the initial conditions that cause the final outcome negate any other possibilities, to include choice or freewill. I concede that the vehicle used to obtain the final outcome does play a role insofar as to choose. But it could not of chosen any other way. Why? Because everything leading up to the final outcome has already been determined. So the chooser is merely operating not unlike a clock wound up and set to strike at noon. The word choice is of course a selection between more than one option. In a fully deterministic system, regardless of how complex, the final outcome is determined by the intial conditions and a choice, as we call it, is empty. imo. I know you think different. The hang up is the word Fully deterministic.