Proof of nonexistence of free will

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The human mind has important functions, otherwise it wouldn't exist. That much should be obvious.

It's not clear why you would say that something can't exist unless it has an important function, Ollie.

I'm assuming that you are presupposing the "natural selection" view of Darwinian evolution, with a teleological element added.

These days that model has been pretty uniformly rejected, with a shift toward a "nearly neutral" approach to theoretical evolutionary biology.

1 Reply

@layman,

Yes, i'm arguing from a Darwinian perspective, where organs exist because they are beneficial. An organ that brings no advantage will progressively be taken out of the gene pool thanks to natural selection.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Yes, i'm arguing from a Darwinian perspective, where organs exist because they are beneficial. An organ that brings no advantage will progressively be taken out of the gene pool thanks to natural selection.

Well, it would probably be more accurate to say that natural selection eliminates "disadvantageous" mutations rather than eliminating one's that aren't advantageous. That's what the neutral theories are saying. There's a difference.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Yes, i'm arguing from a Darwinian perspective, where organs exist because they are beneficial.

This is why I said you are inserting a teleological element. According to neo-darwinism, all mutations are strictly random, and the vast majority of them are harmful to the organism. Unless you presuppose some "goal" of evolution, where mutations wouldn't be random, but instead occur to "improve" the species, there is no reason to say that some (otherwise random) mutation can't survive, even if it confers no particular advantage or doesn't have an "important function."

Why would it be that all people don't have either blue or brown eyes, instead of some having either one or the other (or some other color), for example? That shouldn't be the case if "natural selection" eliminates everything that isn't "beneficial."

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Well, it would probably be more accurate to say that natural selection eliminates "disadvantageous" mutations rather than eliminating one's that aren't advantageous.

That is correct, but organs "cost" something for the body to produce (the body needs to allocate resources for this organ to grow and be maintained; the organ can get sick and kill the body; etc.) so an organ that has zero advantages is in fact disadvantageous, because it costs you something and brings you nothing.

Take human minds. They go crazy all the time. They commit suicide, they get depressed. Minds can malfunction and lead to their body's death or disease. That's a liability which computers and most animals don't have.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Why would it be that all people don't have either blue or brown eyes, instead of some having either one or the other (or some other color), for example? That shouldn't be the case if "natural selection" eliminates everything that isn't "beneficial."

Because Darwinian advantages (or disadvantages) can only be defined relative to certain environments. What can kill you in one place can save you in another. E.g. it may be more advantageous to have dark eyes in places with much sun light, and more advantageous to have light-colored eyes in places with less sun light, like skin color.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Why would it be that all people don't have either blue or brown eyes, instead of some having either one or the other (or some other color), for example? That shouldn't be the case if "natural selection" eliminates everything that isn't "beneficial."

Because Darwinian advantages (or disadvantages) can only be defined relative to certain environments. What can kill you in one place can save you in another. E.g. it may be more advantageous to have dark eyes in places with much sun light, and more advantageous to have light-colored eyes in places with less sun light, like skin color.

Heh, so it that your theory, then? That all people with blues eyes on this planet live in one environment, all with brown eyes live in another, etc. What kind of environment does it take to make blue eyes better than brown eyes, ya figure?

1 Reply

@layman,

Blue eyed evolved and gained predominence in Northern Europe, apparently before light / white skin appeared. So for a few thousand years in prehistory, some European sapiens had dark skin and blue eyes. They found such a character in the UK some time ago: they could decode his DNA and he had blue eyes and black skin...

That the trait became predominent in Northern Europe implies that it was positively selected, therefore there was some survival or reproductive advantage to blue eyes in Northern Europe during that time. Maybe the ladies just liked blue eyes a bit too much, but the theory my money's on is that it allows for better eyesight in crepuscular light. Nothing is proven at this stage.

The case of skin pigmentation is better understood.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The case of skin pigmentation is better understood.

Black skin, which absorbs more sunlight than white, would seem to be especially useful in northern climes, and not well-suited to African deserts. How's your teleological theory explain that?

And how does it explain the circumstance that EVERY inhabitant of Europe doesn't have blue eyes now? How does it explain that blue and brown eyes co-exist on equal footing on every part of the planet?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Black skin, which absorbs more sunlight than white, would seem to be especially useful in northern climes, and not well-suited to African deserts. How's your teleological theory explain that?

It's nothing "teleological. It's a scientific explaination. There's a difference. It has to see with the synthesis by the skin of some provitatin (D if memory serves).

Melanin is a protection against UV. You need it mainly if you go under the sun, which is why white skins that can tan are advantageous as compared to white skins that cannot tan.

Under low light condition, high melanine levels are useless and yet melanine has a metabolic "cost", you need to assemble it. Think of it as a biological insurance against skin cancer. In place with dim sun light, you don't risk skin cancer much, so biologically speaking you don't need to pay for the insurance. And melanine can become a problem in dim light environmentvbecause it absorb a lot of the scant UV there is, which are needed to synthetise this previtamin (D?) I was speaking of.

Quote:

How does it explain that blue and brown eyes co-exist on equal footing on every part of the planet?

Migrations during historical times of white people with blue eyes out of Northern Europe and into America, Australia, etc.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
How does it explain that blue and brown eyes co-exist on equal footing on every part of the planet?

Migrations during historical times of white people with blue eyes out of Northern Europe and into America, Australia, etc.

You're ignoring the question. According to your theory, blue eyes should have been completely wiped out in any environment where they are not optimal. Same with brown eyes. That aint what happened.

1 Reply

@layman,

Not wiped out, no. Not in such a short period of time. Evolution works over many generations, especially when small advantages are concerned. IOW, the intensity of selection depends upon the amount of advantage/disadvantage offered by a genetic trait. In this case the effect is small. A person with dark eyes can perfectly survive and reproduce in a northern climate, even if he might see slightly less well in dim light than someone with blue or green eyes (if that's indeed the correct explanation). That may make of him a slightly worse hunter for instance.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

IOW, the intensity of selection depends upon the amount of advantage/disadvantage offered by a genetic trait.

Well, at least you seem to making little baby steps toward weaning yourself from neo-darwinism and toward the neutral theory. Another thing to consider: The very same trait, in the very same environment, may be quite advantageous in certain circumstances, and very disadvantageous in others. You can easily make up a "Just so" story with regard to just about any trait. There's nothing "scientific" about that. It's all just pseudo-scientific a priori imaginative speculation.

1 Reply

@layman,

Or perhaps you're making baby steps towards understanding what I'm saying...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Or perhaps you're making baby steps towards understanding what I'm saying...

Aint nuthin new. We've all been exposed to the dogmatic panadaptionist darwinian view for years.

In case you aint heard, Ollie:

Quote:

...most molecular differences will not be a product of adaptive, selective changes....The revolution is over and strict Darwinism lost... Unfortunately, this blatantly obvious fact is not understood by the vast majority of people and teachers. There are even many scientists who don't understand evolution.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/02/on-difference-between-neutral-theory.html

1 Reply

@layman,

Of course it's nothing new... What do you expect? I'm not at the cutting edge of evolution theory. I'm just using it to make a point re. minds: that their existence must count for something. If minds brought no advantage whatsoever, they probably wouldn't exist.

Now cry me a river about molecular differences.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

There are several illusions on the perception process that are the result of evolutionary advantages or lack thereof of a need for further finesse e.g. the range of colour we see, the range of sound we ear, etc...point being the epiphenomenon of mind and the illusion of free will serves a purpose which is simple to explain, compelling determination to action. We need a meaningful narrative in the brain not just mindless calculus like we have in the gut. That, in turn, does not prove or make a case for Free Will just for the illusion of it being advantageous as we try to survive and manage the environment around us.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

the epiphenomenon of mind and the illusion of free will serves a purpose which is simple to explain, compelling determination to action.

If it compels to action, it has important consequences.

If it has important consequences, it's not an epiphenomenon...

Quote:

Epiphenomenalism is a mind–body philosophy marked by the belief that basic physical events (sense organs, neural impulses, and muscle contractions) are causal with respect to mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition). Mental events are viewed as completely dependent on physical functions and, as such, have no independent existence or causal efficacy; it is a mere appearance.

(wiki, emphasis added)

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
the epiphenomenon of mind and the illusion of free will serves a purpose which is simple to explain, compelling determination to action.

If it compels to action, it has important consequences.

If it has important consequences, it's not an epiphenomenon...

Quote:
Epiphenomenalism is a mind–body philosophy marked by the belief that basic physical events (sense organs, neural impulses, and muscle contractions) are causal with respect to mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition). Mental events are viewed as completely dependent on physical functions and, as such, have no independent existence or causal efficacy; it is a mere appearance.

(wiki, emphasis added)

Important consequences arise from the epiphenomenal relation between brain, body, and environment, as you marked "Mental events are viewed as completely dependent on physical functions and, as such, have no independent existence or causal efficacy". You just made my point. The compelling illusion of free will is the engine to survival. It's the illusion of choosing freely in the hard determined process of willing as you MUST that compels not the mind top down...the"narrative" to which you are a passive spectator arises from the relation of the three variables I pointed out!

0 Replies

Although we all like to believe it there is no such thing as meaningless choice. Choice cannot be done without a compelling reason...down to the atom.

1 Reply

Proof of nonexistence of free will

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know