Is there such a thing as free will from evolution’s perspective?
For if we do, in the absolute sense of free, then we can change the course of Nature itself, go against the very “will” of evolution and natural selection and the survival of the fittest, ie we can make the less than fittest survive by sheer will; such as putting in place justice and equality and affirmative polices and so on.
But the evolutionist will probably say that whatever we make happen is natural and consistent with evolution for the fact that it happened, and that whoever survives is indeed the fittest, and “free will” is just another means to this ends (others being such as morality, religion, values, good, evil, or whatever). That we thought we had free will and that we are able to make the less fit survive was an illusion, it is just that we cannot see the “deeper workings” of evolution.
But saying what is, is, is as good as saying nothing. And if you truly believe you have free will then evolution, if it is still relevant, cannot and do not say everything about all of life.
There is no such thing as an “evolutionist” in the manner of “creationist”. There are people who study evolution, but we generally call them scientists and biological engineers, and sometimes palaeontologists and such. There are also those who, rationally understanding the value of the scientific method, can see the sense in the facts supplied by those researchers. Then there are those who don’t understand it.
Before asking “Does free will exist?”, you really need to define “free will”, so we all know precisely what you’re asking.
No, “evolution” doesn’t have a perspective; not even in a figurative sense.
Adam,
It’s alright to ask for definitions, but in their limit definitions only lead us in circles. Most of the time we have to settle on the definitions of our words taken from the context in which they’re used (re: the later Wittgenstein). I don’t understand dog, but I have a pretty good idea how to define a Rottweiler’s growl. If we waited until we had a clear and distinct understanding of all our words I doubt much would ever be said. It’s valient of chanbengchin to to offer a definition, because my definitions would probably be longer than my posts.
I don’t believe we can assert that the universe is 100% deterministic. Given all that quantum funkiness, anyway. However, I think enough evidence exists to indicate causality in so many cases, that we can’t say the universe is 100% indeterministic. I think it’s fair to say that things are guided in large part by causes. I tend to view things now as probabilistic in nature. Maybe the cause of you doing something is caused 20% by a genetic/evolutionary drive; maybe 70% by momentary physical requirements; maybe 80% by some social trends… And maybe there’s some influence from factors which we’ll never pin down to any particular cause. Perhaps if we can’t define it, we may call that “free will”. Yes, I’m aware percentages overlap; I see no reason why not. I’m viewing it as a sliding scale of influences in various areas.
So are you saying evolution dont explain everything? And that we on our own “free will” are able to change the course of evolution and natural selection. There is a yet a part of us that is “outside” Nature that can participate and change Nature itself.
And on something being probabilistic: it is not equivalent to saying something is indeterministic. It is merely a reflection of our lack of knowledge, and not necessarily a reflection of any inherent variability in that thing.
For example when we say an object is somewhere in an area, with various probabilities of it being at any specific location, it does not mean that the object is at any of these locations. The object may be at one specific location for all times. It just that we do not or cannot know it.
What I am saying is that saying a thing is probabilistic dont make a thing indeterministic. It only means we cannot predict a future outcome, even if the outcome is determined already by prior causes.
And so to determine whether a thing is caused or free, ie uncaused, needs more than probabilistic observations of probabilistic effects.
Like it or not, want it or not, that there are non-evolutionist defines what an evolutionist is. Call the non-evolutionist, mad, irrational, stupid, or whatever ridicule in your vocabulary, the fact they exists defines who you are. And by the way, that there are mad people defines us who are sane (or are we? ). And of course we are straying from the subject …
Isaac Bashevis Singer once said “We have to believe in free-will. We have no choice.” We can act as we please in many regards, but there are certain aspects of our life that are out of our control. For example, you can choose whether or not to turn on the TV, but you cannot control what shows will be on what channels. There is someone else who can control what shows will be on what channels (or at least a person that determines the programs aired on whatever station/s they own), but cannot control whether or not you turn on your TV. It is still possible, but hard to dis/prove, that some entity outside of our universe has full control of our life, and has merely programmed use to think that we have some degree of free will.
That’s ridiculous. Do you have an opinion on ice cream flavours? Perhaps you prefer chocolate over strawberry? Let’s say you prefer chocolate. Does that mean the strawberryists define you by perfering something else? That because they are strawberryists, you are a chocolatist? And you wholly defined by that label, though it is such a tiny facet of your existence?
Sorry, I’m not an evolutionist, no matter how much another may wish me to be.
No I am not comparing strawberryists and chocolatist, but between strawberryists and non-strawberryists. If you say that there are no strawberryists, I’ll show you a non-strawberryist (and he or she can be chocalistist, or vanillaist, marshmallowist, etc); and then I will know what a strawberryists is or else I wouldn’t know what a non-strawberryist is in the first place.
But more seriously I do not think it is an issue of “preference” or opinions to be an evolutionist or not. If everything in the world is a matter of preference, we have no basis for discourse, discussion or communication. For that we need an objective measure, ie untainted by self, personality and preferences, by which we can agree/disagree, discern error/corectness, etc or else each of us will all always be right by sheer preference, and that I think is an absurdity. And for me what compels me is truth and not my fickle and uncertain preferences. And for that this is not a question of opinon too.
And lastly I am not saying you are an evolutionist. I am only saying there is such a creature out there, even hypothetically, or just a literal construct for purposes of argument. And from dictionary.com:
There is a difference between “wrong” and “disagree”.
I am not an evolutionist. I may believe evolution is right, but that makes up such a small portion of who I am that I could not possibly be labelled as such.
Watch:
X believes in creationism.
Y believes in evolution.
X refers to himself as a creationist.
X refers to Y as an evolutionist.
X prefers strawberry icecream.
Y prefers chocolate icecream.
X refers to himself as a strawberryist.
X refers to Y as a chocolatist.
No, I am not a non-creationist either. Try to understand this. A person can not be described by such a small label. Even more so, a person can not be described as a non-“us” by any member of any “us”, not in any meaningful and accurate manner. At the very best, any non-“us” label means nothing more than “outsider”. And “outsider” clearly says absolutely nothing about the subject in question.
I never said everything was.
Why? Why would everything being a matter of preference prevent any communication? Two people can quite readily have a discussion about nothing other than preferences.
). And of course we are straying from the subject …