Does Evolution Have An Objective?

To help keep our brains from exploding too early participants were asked (Message 180): Checkpoint posts are here.Modulous -Message 181
Mr. Jack - Message 182
Catholic Scientist - Message 183
Straggler - Message 201Hope this reference helps.Thanks, again, guys.

You will appreciate that whether the universe is deterministic is different to the question of whether such determinism is compatible with choice or freewill. I am talking of the latter question.

So it is determined by the will.And what determines what the will chooses?

I started this thread and then immediately ran out of time. Probably best for all concerned. The whole topic is at the edge of my ability to keep straight. I doubt that I can add anything but I feel obliged to answer.My answers are; The universe is deterministic. Everything has a cause(s). Probabilistic, random, irrational all refer to our level of predictive knowledge. The perception of ‘self’ as an originating cause. Yes and no. Freewill is an illusion, a product of self-awareness. If I am aware of the elements that caused me to make a certain choice then it feels less like a choice. If I am unaware of the causes of my choices I substitute my sense of self as the cause. So, our sense of freewill is born of the fact that we cannot know the causes of our choices in their entirety. So we have freewill because we believe that we do. A freewill of the gaps.In contrast to the perception of magic, the perception of choice is equivalent to the reality of choice as the reality of choice is nothing more than a perspective. No. Meh and pffft!To the OP and the question of an evolutionary objective. Somewhere along the line of cause and effect, consciousness was created. The resultant abilities produced things like forks and AI machines. No one would dispute that we are the cause of the AI machines and that their creation was our objective. If an AI machine ever becomes self aware it will then be able to form and hold objectives. This objective holding does not regress beyond us because we cannot ‘see’ the preceding consciousness. Intuiting that consciousness is the root of the god idea. Bad robot.The unsatisfying answer then to the ill formed and oblique question is that our freewill is the unique ability that allows us to hold an objective, if we have it.

Me too. Your position has been duly addressed.

I don't really know how it all works.It seems like you use your will to decide.

When I use the word "determinism" in the philosophical context of the problem of free will, it means more to me than simply "everything has a cause". Just sayin' So how does that affect the Theory of Evolution in that one main component is random mutation? Are they really non-random? Is the ToE wrong? Or, its the illusion that causes us to think that we can hold an objective Do you think that particles in Brownian Motion have the capacity to end up in different positions? Do you think that a particular atom undergoing radioactive decay has the capacity to decay at a different time? Do you think that a particular mutation had the capacity to mutate differently?

I have no idea what point you were trying to make in post 205.

So when you said 'There could be conscious nondeterministic actually-reality-affecting decision making going on without having to rely on a soul.' you had no idea what you were talking about. You could have saved us both some time by saying that earlier. When I asked

quote:

---

Can you point to any similar 'soul science'?

---

You can replace 'soul science' with 'will science' and my question remains the same and your answer still appears to be 'no'. You also cannot see how it gets us to moral responsibility, but you also cannot see how it doesn't, indeed you don't know how it works at all - so why bring it up in a debate?

So It seems to me we are in 3 schools of thought.1. The universe is deterministic and we have free will.2. The universe is probablistic/deterministic and we have free will.3. The universe is deterministic and we have the illusion of free will.In all cases it seems the main contention is whether or not such a thing as free will exist.I contend that since we are a non separate part of the universe our very existence along with our choices are a emergent part of how reality plays out. Reality may be a highly sophisticated 3-D video game with no do overs.
How we the "gamers" choose actualizes the cascade of events of all other possibilities. The collapse of the wave function so to speak. I heard about the information paradox that information can not cease to exist in our universe. If all the permutations of every possible out come is already pre-programmed, then we may very likley be participating in a game. We choose and operate within the confines of our universes rules.

Well, what else does it mean?

quote:

---

Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

---

Causal Determinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Can you provide an example of an event where all of the inputs are known and the immediate effect is not predictable? There are many things beyond our ability to predict but that doesn’t mean we should abandon our understanding of, and evidence for, causality. No, the theory is not wrong. It is just not finished. The mutations appear, to us, to be random because we cannot predict them. Exactly. It is at this point that I would point out how good Canadian whiskey tastes with a little ice and water. No, no and no.Awareness causes the illusion of possibilities, choice and freewill. These are all egocentric terms.What of moral responsibility? I think that it is safe because we are adjustable machines. In the end it does not matter, to us, if it is only an illusion. It is real enough, relatively speaking, and beside that, how could we abandon moral responsibility and survive?

"that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen."Supposing that something else could have happened doesn't necessitate that it doesn't have a cause, so simply saying that it has a cause doesn't totally encompass philosophical determinism, or "completely deterministic" as we've been referring to it here.Your "causal determinism" is a subset of this Determinism. I would think it would mean that we can't say that the universe is completely deterministic. Hrm, non-random random-mutations looks awefully contradictory I realize its that sissy canadian blended shit, but Crown Royal is just fantastic! I like to just let a coupla ice cubes melt a bit rather than acually add any water Interesting... Why is that? Because you're already accepting determinism? Heh... if, because of determinism, we can't really blame someone for immorality then they can't blame us for punishing them for it. For too, their punishment was pre-determined and there's nothing we can do about it

Right. Saying that something else could have happened shows that you don’t know what all the inputs are. Yes it does. Look again. There is only one type of determinism and it is complete. Either things have a cause or they don’t. Any other kind of determinism is some sort of watered down lawyer drink (no offense Subbie). Only because you can’t predict it. If you could predict them would they still be random? I find that by adding water it feels like I am drinking more of it. If I feel more satisfied, am I actually more satisfied? I think so.

Random mutations are random with respect to fitness. In essence, they are not influenced by what effect they may have on the phenotype. They were referred to as something like 'chance variations' - but random mutations seems to have won the meme war.

Would you agree that random, in general, refers to our ability to predict? Or is there some other mathematical meaning?