https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ee-will/p1
If we can identify anything as "best" or "most efficient" then free will's only significant function would be to choose otherwise. — ZhouBoTong
Yes. That's why I have concluded that human Free Will is limited to a conscious Veto over the options presented by automatic sub-conscious calculations. Our "selfish genes" program the subconscious to calculate what's "best" for survival and reproduction. But our mental Selves may have other priorities, such as morality. So freewill is not quite as free as some would like to believe, but it's also not an illusion as others would prefer.
The human brain is a future-predicting machine, but the human mind has an over-ride vote : an unforced choice. Unfortunately, many of us allow a coin-flip to decide; hence, no better than robots.
Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ee-will/p1
I don’t know if I accept the idea of “the selfish gene”. — Brett
It's just a metaphor. You can substitute whatever "programming" results in the body's ability to run itself, like a robot, without the mind consciously directing a million events every second.
I don’t know if I accept the idea of “the selfish gene”. — Brett
It's just a metaphor. You can substitute whatever "programming" results in the body's ability to run itself, like a robot, without the mind consciously directing a million events every second.
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ee-will/p1
I think I agree overall, assuming you are using some figurative language. But as a small disagreement, couldn't our sub-conscious also be influenced by morality — ZhouBoTong
Yes. I use metaphors as a short-cut for extremely complex "mechanisms". And I agree that the sub-conscious mind can be "programmed" by conscious concerns for morality : that's what we call "developing Character". But, once programmed, the subconscious system operates the body automatically, until some problem requires an executive decision. For example, the emotions quickly prime the body for "fight or flight". But the exec has to decide which. That's why we tend to freeze, when startled, long enough to assess the situation. Of course, when faced with a seven foot tall, 800 pound bear, the feet may start running before the exec even gets the request for orders.
I think I agree overall, assuming you are using some figurative language. But as a small disagreement, couldn't our sub-conscious also be influenced by morality — ZhouBoTong
Yes. I use metaphors as a short-cut for extremely complex "mechanisms". And I agree that the sub-conscious mind can be "programmed" by conscious concerns for morality : that's what we call "developing Character". But, once programmed, the subconscious system operates the body automatically, until some problem requires an executive decision. For example, the emotions quickly prime the body for "fight or flight". But the exec has to decide which. That's why we tend to freeze, when startled, long enough to assess the situation. Of course, when faced with a seven foot tall, 800 pound bear, the feet may start running before the exec even gets the request for orders.
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ee-will/p2
I must get stuck in that moment of decision then. My fight or flight is f***ed. It almost always results in freeze. I did kickboxing for about a decade and the only fights that went well were the ones where I was calm enough for fight or flight to never kick in. — ZhouBoTong
Ha! That's why martial arts and competitive sports emphasize "practice, practice, practice". When you practice a move, your conscious mind analyzes the motions into small details. But your subconscious mind remembers only the whole movement (muscle memory). Eventually, you no longer need to freeze long enough to analyze, you just do it without thinking --- without willing. I suspect you may be an introvert, who is always consciously monitoring what you are doing. Top athletes and artists just go with the flow.
Flow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
I must get stuck in that moment of decision then. My fight or flight is f***ed. It almost always results in freeze. I did kickboxing for about a decade and the only fights that went well were the ones where I was calm enough for fight or flight to never kick in. — ZhouBoTong
Ha! That's why martial arts and competitive sports emphasize "practice, practice, practice". When you practice a move, your conscious mind analyzes the motions into small details. But your subconscious mind remembers only the whole movement (muscle memory). Eventually, you no longer need to freeze long enough to analyze, you just do it without thinking --- without willing. I suspect you may be an introvert, who is always consciously monitoring what you are doing. Top athletes and artists just go with the flow.
Flow : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ee-will/p2
If "directed evolution" means that the average Joe takes all applicable factors into account then chooses the most efficient way to live and reproduce, then I am yet to be sold. — ZhouBoTong
Maybe TMF is talking about Cultural Evolution in general, rather than Eugenics or Transhumanism in particular. Cultural Evolution occurs much more rapidly than Natural Evolution. Cultural Selection is cumulative human choices. Unfortunately, the "unfit" consequences of our short-term efficiencies come back to haunt us quickly (e.g. burning fossil fuels, buried over millions of years, turned into aerosols in just a few human generations). Fortunately, if we learn from history, we can try to avoid making the same short-sighted choices over & over.
Cultural Evolution : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
If "directed evolution" means that the average Joe takes all applicable factors into account then chooses the most efficient way to live and reproduce, then I am yet to be sold. — ZhouBoTong
Maybe TMF is talking about Cultural Evolution in general, rather than Eugenics or Transhumanism in particular. Cultural Evolution occurs much more rapidly than Natural Evolution. Cultural Selection is cumulative human choices. Unfortunately, the "unfit" consequences of our short-term efficiencies come back to haunt us quickly (e.g. burning fossil fuels, buried over millions of years, turned into aerosols in just a few human generations). Fortunately, if we learn from history, we can try to avoid making the same short-sighted choices over & over.
Cultural Evolution : http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page12.html
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ee-will/p2
In fact it could be said that if nature is truly efficient it would favor directed evolution which necessitates an agent with intelligence AND free will rather than just leave everything to the vagaries of chance. — TheMadFool
So, you think evolution "intended" to create intelligent agents all along, but it took 14 billion years to create a working prototype? I'm kidding, but most materialists would find the notion of teleology in Nature to be magical thinking. I happen to agree with your intuition, but instead of promoting Intelligent Design (ID), I propose Intelligent Evolution (IE).
The primary difference between blind groping evolution and directed evolution is the foresight to imagine something better than what is. According to Darwinism, Nature is an ad hoc process : it works with what worked in the past, and adapts it to a new function. Early humans were not much better. They found rocks lying around and used them to pound on nuts. Only thousands of years later did their intelligence invent the hammer, which is intended specifically to pound on nails.
Intelligent Design envisions a world that began as a perfect design, but has been corrupted by an evil deity. Intelligent Evolution proposes a world that began as a primordial Egg, and is still developing and evolving toward the complete design. Both theories explain the imperfections, but only one explains the necessity for gradual evolution, and for the belated emergence of Intelligence, Will, and Morality.
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
In fact it could be said that if nature is truly efficient it would favor directed evolution which necessitates an agent with intelligence AND free will rather than just leave everything to the vagaries of chance. — TheMadFool
So, you think evolution "intended" to create intelligent agents all along, but it took 14 billion years to create a working prototype? I'm kidding, but most materialists would find the notion of teleology in Nature to be magical thinking. I happen to agree with your intuition, but instead of promoting Intelligent Design (ID), I propose Intelligent Evolution (IE).
The primary difference between blind groping evolution and directed evolution is the foresight to imagine something better than what is. According to Darwinism, Nature is an ad hoc process : it works with what worked in the past, and adapts it to a new function. Early humans were not much better. They found rocks lying around and used them to pound on nuts. Only thousands of years later did their intelligence invent the hammer, which is intended specifically to pound on nails.
Intelligent Design envisions a world that began as a perfect design, but has been corrupted by an evil deity. Intelligent Evolution proposes a world that began as a primordial Egg, and is still developing and evolving toward the complete design. Both theories explain the imperfections, but only one explains the necessity for gradual evolution, and for the belated emergence of Intelligence, Will, and Morality.
Intelligent Evolution : http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/ ... 473/gnomon
Isn't this a tacit affirmation that, given the means and opportunity, an intelligent designer can surpass blind evolution in every way? — TheMadFool
Yes, but that assumes the Designer intended to create a perfect Garden of Eden. If so, then we have to invent an evil god who is powerful enough to foil that intention. However, what if the whole point of creation was to produce a self-perfecting Experiential Process? Some philosophers have postulated that God experiences reality through our eyes, ears, and feelings. I can't speak for God's intentions, but the self-improvement Process of Intelligent Evolution makes more sense to me than the failed Perfection of Intelligent Design.
Omega Point : Perfection at the end rather than the beginning of the creation process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
Isn't this a tacit affirmation that, given the means and opportunity, an intelligent designer can surpass blind evolution in every way? — TheMadFool
Yes, but that assumes the Designer intended to create a perfect Garden of Eden. If so, then we have to invent an evil god who is powerful enough to foil that intention. However, what if the whole point of creation was to produce a self-perfecting Experiential Process? Some philosophers have postulated that God experiences reality through our eyes, ears, and feelings. I can't speak for God's intentions, but the self-improvement Process of Intelligent Evolution makes more sense to me than the failed Perfection of Intelligent Design.
Omega Point : Perfection at the end rather than the beginning of the creation process.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -free-will
Isn't this a tacit affirmation that, given the means and opportunity, an intelligent designer can surpass blind evolution in every way? — TheMadFool
Perhaps. If the final outcome was the most important goal of the designer. But multiplayer video games are intended to provide an ongoing experience for the players, not to rig the game for a predetermined end state. So, maybe the "designer" of our world was more interested in the Process than the Product.
As you suggested, "given the means and opportunity", why should it take over 14 billion human years to create a perfect world with perfect people? In Genesis, the Creator produced a perfect paradise, complete with vegetarian lions and innocent humans, in only six days, and then took some time off. Ironically, during his vacation, a Troll hacked-in to paradise and "put up a parking lot".
However, since our turbulent Game of Thrones is still evolving in fits & starts, I must assume the Designer is either absconded, or incompetent, or is enjoying the ride, and in no hurry to see the drama end.
Isn't this a tacit affirmation that, given the means and opportunity, an intelligent designer can surpass blind evolution in every way? — TheMadFool
Perhaps. If the final outcome was the most important goal of the designer. But multiplayer video games are intended to provide an ongoing experience for the players, not to rig the game for a predetermined end state. So, maybe the "designer" of our world was more interested in the Process than the Product.
As you suggested, "given the means and opportunity", why should it take over 14 billion human years to create a perfect world with perfect people? In Genesis, the Creator produced a perfect paradise, complete with vegetarian lions and innocent humans, in only six days, and then took some time off. Ironically, during his vacation, a Troll hacked-in to paradise and "put up a parking lot".
However, since our turbulent Game of Thrones is still evolving in fits & starts, I must assume the Designer is either absconded, or incompetent, or is enjoying the ride, and in no hurry to see the drama end.
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ee-will/p3
What I mean is that given any project - life and anything else for that matter - an intelligent person with a good plan will be produce better and faster results than a person without a plan. — TheMadFool
I agree. But I'm not talking about an "intelligent person" whose intentions and methods are presumably similar to my own. Just as the Atheists argue, the fact that our world is flawed, indicates that a traditional creator-entity failed to achieve his goal of perfection, either because he was a flawed designer (demiurge), or that his perfect plan was opposed by an evil deity (Devil). A variety of such rationales have been proposed in the past. But my thesis reverses that assumption of divine intention. What if the "plan" was to create an evolving process instead a perfect world?
Since evolution does show signs of progress toward some ultimate goal*, I must assume that the intention was not to instantly create a Garden of Eden 6000 years ago. Instead, the intent was focused either on a distant future resolution, or on the process itself. As I suggested, human multi-player game designers (SimCity; Dungeons & Dragons) don't create a perfect world, but provide a base reality, and then allow the players enough freewill to evolve their world according to a collective intention. The omniscient designer turns over the base design to the hive-mind of fallible players with selfish motives.
I don't mean to take the simulated world theory (Matrix) literally, but just as a metaphor for a designed Process instead of a designed Product. The ultimate end of such a process might be perfect in some sense, or it might just play itself out as entropy reaches a maximum. I take an optimistic view based on the novel concept of Enformy (negentropy). Enformationism is a theory of an Enformed System.
Enformy : In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Theory of Enformed Systems : http://hilgart.org/enformy/$wsr02.html
https://hilgart.org/enformy/enformy.htm
Simulated Reality : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... the-matrix
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ar ... cna1026916
* Progression of Evolution : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
What I mean is that given any project - life and anything else for that matter - an intelligent person with a good plan will be produce better and faster results than a person without a plan. — TheMadFool
I agree. But I'm not talking about an "intelligent person" whose intentions and methods are presumably similar to my own. Just as the Atheists argue, the fact that our world is flawed, indicates that a traditional creator-entity failed to achieve his goal of perfection, either because he was a flawed designer (demiurge), or that his perfect plan was opposed by an evil deity (Devil). A variety of such rationales have been proposed in the past. But my thesis reverses that assumption of divine intention. What if the "plan" was to create an evolving process instead a perfect world?
Since evolution does show signs of progress toward some ultimate goal*, I must assume that the intention was not to instantly create a Garden of Eden 6000 years ago. Instead, the intent was focused either on a distant future resolution, or on the process itself. As I suggested, human multi-player game designers (SimCity; Dungeons & Dragons) don't create a perfect world, but provide a base reality, and then allow the players enough freewill to evolve their world according to a collective intention. The omniscient designer turns over the base design to the hive-mind of fallible players with selfish motives.
I don't mean to take the simulated world theory (Matrix) literally, but just as a metaphor for a designed Process instead of a designed Product. The ultimate end of such a process might be perfect in some sense, or it might just play itself out as entropy reaches a maximum. I take an optimistic view based on the novel concept of Enformy (negentropy). Enformationism is a theory of an Enformed System.
Enformy : In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
Theory of Enformed Systems : http://hilgart.org/enformy/$wsr02.html
https://hilgart.org/enformy/enformy.htm
Simulated Reality : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... the-matrix
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ar ... cna1026916
* Progression of Evolution : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page29.html
Re: Phil Forum : Evolution & Freewill
After all the dinosaur age makes it quite clear that intelligence isn't necessary for life. That said intelligence does give us an edge in the survival business doesn't it? — TheMadFool
Maybe a slight edge. Arthur C. Clarke once wrote, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." I don't know if he was being sarcastic, but biologist Ernst Mayer also voiced that same opinion. Yet how else do you explain that, of all vertebrates, only humans have adapted to every environment on Earth, and even in space? Plus, of all mammals, humans are the only ones increasing in population, while many others are facing extinction. If successful reproduction is a sign of evolutionary fitness, then intelligence must be a big success. Unfortunately, as you noted, intelligence can be a two-edged sword, like the taming of fire. And intelligent humans have only one rival in the survival business : other humans.
PS___Birds are considered to be the literal descendants of dinosaurs, and they seem to be doing pretty well considering, millions of years after the Saurian "Extinction". Relatively smart, and warm-blooded.
Maybe a slight edge. Arthur C. Clarke once wrote, "It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value." I don't know if he was being sarcastic, but biologist Ernst Mayer also voiced that same opinion. Yet how else do you explain that, of all vertebrates, only humans have adapted to every environment on Earth, and even in space? Plus, of all mammals, humans are the only ones increasing in population, while many others are facing extinction. If successful reproduction is a sign of evolutionary fitness, then intelligence must be a big success. Unfortunately, as you noted, intelligence can be a two-edged sword, like the taming of fire. And intelligent humans have only one rival in the survival business : other humans.
PS___Birds are considered to be the literal descendants of dinosaurs, and they seem to be doing pretty well considering, millions of years after the Saurian "Extinction". Relatively smart, and warm-blooded.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Gnomon and 0 guests