Does Evolution Have An Objective?

Yes but that is not 'choice' in the colloquial sense. That is like 'choosing' to accept an offer that you can't refuse.

I disagree. I think it's the closest possible meaning to the colloquial sense. The colloquial sense being, of course, nonsense. No, you're really choosing.

No, it's not. It's your choice that determines the path.

An immortal species could still evolve via pressure from sexual selection. It does, but too, the devil made us throw your ass in jail I suppose there could be an evolutionary advantage to having itches that aren't really there *shrugs* Some things aren't deterministic, like Brownian Motion or radioactive decay. So if we really are making choices then that makes us special (imo).

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. By what mechanism do you suppose we make choices, if you reject the notion of deterministic things making choices?

If the outcome is independent of our "choice", then we're not really choosing and we don't have free will, but if the outcome does depend on our choice then we do.This isn't a very complicated concept.

---

Oh, I get it:

I think the confusion here is between a connection on a practical level vs. a uniquely specific level when talking about "choice".I will try to make this point using a more familiar example: Uniquely Specific "Reality"
If we really were brains in jars, what we experience now isn't really "real" but just an illusion of reality. Practical "Reality"
Regardless of whether we're brains in jars or not or whatever may be behind the unknowable curtain, we experience this reality and it is "our reality". Even if we were brains in jars, my foot still hurts when I kick a wall. Therefore, it is "real to us" (ie "real") in all useful definitions of the word and we should proceed in that fashion since none of the other navel gazing makes any difference anyway.The uniquely specific reality statement above may be specifically true if you limit your definition of "reality" to include a filter of "it must be exactly as implied by my personal common sense." But, since we know things do not always line up with common sense and what matters is the way things actually are experienced by us, the uniquely specific idea is useless and can be discarded.We can apply this kind of thinking to the choice argument: Uniquely Specific "Choice"
If we really lived in a completely deterministic universe, what we think we choose isn't really "a choice" but just an illusion of choice. Practical "Choice"
Regardless of whether the universe is deterministic or not or whatever may be behind the unknowable curtain, we experience making decisions and they are "our choices". Even if the universe was completely deterministic, I still get chocolate ice cream when I choose it for dessert. Therefore, it is "a choice to us" (ie "choosing") in all useful definitions of the word and we should proceed in that fashion since none of the other navel gazing makes any difference anyway.Again, the uniquely specific choice statement above may be specifically true if you limit your definition of "choice" to include a filter of "it must be exactly as implied by my personal common sense." But, since we know things do not always line up with common sense and what matters is the way things actually are experienced by us, the uniquely specific idea is useless and can be discarded.Edited by Stile, : *waves hand* Move along. These are not the edits you're looking for.

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

I agree. Why do you imagine that determinism interferes with this concept? Brownian motion is caused by the impact of particles we cannot see on particles we can see. Each of these impacts follows conventional physics, imparting a small impulse to the visible particle and an equal-but-opposite impulse to the particle we can't see. Each such impact follows conventional physical laws, so the overall motion of the visible particle is deterministic, although - of course - we don't know the state of the particles we can't see and thus can't precisely predict the motion.Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

"Keep beating" - probably not. It's not a system with a "don't beat" option, but it is a system that continually makes choices about how and when to beat. I do not see the consciousness illusion as a necessary part of choice, especially as it is increasingly obvious that the conscious brain has little to do with actual choice making. I do not accept the idea that the conscious brain is "me", while the unconscious brain isn't. I consider both to be part of the whole I do not believe there is anything illusionary about the choice.

I do not accept that determinism makes the choice in any sense "illusionary". We did really make that choice, determinism just means that we would make the same choice every time we reran the universe.And non-determinism does absolutely nothing to "save" choice making. Let us suppose that, unlikely as it seems, inherently random processes have a significant effect on our cognition, introducing a random element into our decision making processes. Now, how is that more of a choice? Why is having what is effectively a coin flip involved make it a "choice"? It seems to me that choice is about decision making processes, and coin flipping is - if anything - less of a decision making process than a purely deterministic one. What makes it our choice is that we're the ones who have that decision making process.Without us, and our choices, the deterministic universe would be different. The "path" is only the path it is because the decisions we make are the ones we make; that existence of a chance of an alternative choice is irrelevant.

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.

The heart's beating is controlled by a neural network which is semi-separated from the central nervous system. If you wished to analyse this system separately from its context within the larger decision making and life of the body you could still reasonably describe it as making choices. There is no conscious self independent of the brain. Are they? I think people frequently talk about choices when they're discussing things they did even without weighing up options. Sure. But both are actually made unconsciously. I don't see any reason to consider consciousness relevant to whether something is a choice or not but even if we arbitrarily limit choices to consciousness, determinism remains irrelevant. I think it should be obvious to anyone who's applied a little introspection that most choices are not made at the conscious, deliberate level. And that we are not really aware of having any influence over many of the most important choices we make. I think it's a different illusion, the illusion of consciousness is one thing; the reality of choice is another. You are still choosing; determinism is utterly irrelevant.

It makes the outcome independent of our "choice". If you rewind and replay, will the particles follow the same paths?