• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution and free will mutually exclusive?

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
On one of the philosophy groups I'm in, someone brought up free will and evolution (yea, big surprise there! ;)). I wanted to get your opinions on what he said:

"Everyone who believes in evolution knows that we evolved from single celled organisms. We also know that single celled organisms are 100% completely predictable. So predictable that scientists are able to literally use simple organisms to do whatever they want, like genetically engineer bacteria to produce hydrogen or to invent a type of algea that converts salt water to fresh water. No one in their right mind could argue that these organisms have any type of choice.

We evolved from these organisms, so we are only more complicated versions of them. For the people that believe in free-will, how do you explain this? Do you think an organism magically gains the ability to exercise free-will as it evolves?"

I'm still undecided on it myself, since I don't know if all single-celled organisms react predictably. Maybe one of you guys can enlighten me on that?
 

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Freewill is available to all life
Only Life with the ability to think, can excercise it.


Organisms all react predictably when viewed as a whole and over a long timeperiod.
Individually the more options they have. the less predictable they become.

Terry_______________________________-
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Jensa said:
On one of the philosophy groups I'm in, someone brought up free will and evolution (yea, big surprise there! ;)). I wanted to get your opinions on what he said:

"Everyone who believes in evolution knows that we evolved from single celled organisms. We also know that single celled organisms are 100% completely predictable. So predictable that scientists are able to literally use simple organisms to do whatever they want, like genetically engineer bacteria to produce hydrogen or to invent a type of algea that converts salt water to fresh water. No one in their right mind could argue that these organisms have any type of choice.

We evolved from these organisms, so we are only more complicated versions of them. For the people that believe in free-will, how do you explain this? Do you think an organism magically gains the ability to exercise free-will as it evolves?"

I'm still undecided on it myself, since I don't know if all single-celled organisms react predictably. Maybe one of you guys can enlighten me on that?
I don't know if all single-celled organisms react predictably
Neither do I; but I'd just like to make a point (from what I see as pure logic - although some might not accept my definition). "We are more complicated versions of them " , you said - and we are 'many-celled' - just take, as comparison, the musical notes on a piano keyboard, how many permutations of played notes are there ? add those up into songs, tunes, whatever you wish to call them; Just the few notes that we have available to us produce an entire 'range' of music......think about it.;)
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Jensa said:
On one of the philosophy groups I'm in, someone brought up free will and evolution (yea, big surprise there! ;)). I wanted to get your opinions on what he said:

"Everyone who believes in evolution knows that we evolved from single celled organisms. We also know that single celled organisms are 100% completely predictable. So predictable that scientists are able to literally use simple organisms to do whatever they want, like genetically engineer bacteria to produce hydrogen or to invent a type of algea that converts salt water to fresh water. No one in their right mind could argue that these organisms have any type of choice.

We evolved from these organisms, so we are only more complicated versions of them. For the people that believe in free-will, how do you explain this? Do you think an organism magically gains the ability to exercise free-will as it evolves?"

I'm still undecided on it myself, since I don't know if all single-celled organisms react predictably. Maybe one of you guys can enlighten me on that?
Single celled organisms are NOT 100% completely predictable. They are more predictable than us, but then they also have fewer possible responses than us. That is not a valid argument against the existence free-will within the framework of evolution.

There is, however, a valid argument against the existence free-will within the framework of naturalism in general. All our behaviors are caused by pre-existing circumstances that contrain our responses, making us predictable but not entirely predictable. What variability we do see is due to chance, random fluctuations, a little more neurotransmitter being released than usual, etc. There is no room in the explanation for "I simply decided to get strawberry icecream today even tho I normally get chocolate." One's decisions are based entirely on constraints and chance. Most of us do not view free-will as a random fluctuation. We experience it as something of our own making.

That said, I don't believe that the theistic approach explains free-will any better. Either God is omniscient and/or omnipotent etc and our actions are already predestined. Or God is not omniscient and/or omnipotent etc and our actions are again left up to chance. Most theists will say that we have a "soul" that makes our decisions, but that's just a word. It doesn't really explain how the decisions are made.

For me, I believe in free-will, it's one of the cornerstones of my theology, but how we have it remains a mystery to me.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
lilithu said:
Single celled organisms are NOT 100% completely predictable. They are more predictable than us, but then they also have fewer possible responses than us. That is not a valid argument against the existence free-will within the framework of evolution.

There is, however, a valid argument against the existence free-will within the framework of naturalism in general. All our behaviors are caused by pre-existing circumstances that contrain our responses, making us predictable but not entirely predictable. What variability we do see is due to chance, random fluctuations, a little more neurotransmitter being released than usual, etc. There is no room in the explanation for "I simply decided to get strawberry icecream today even tho I normally get chocolate." One's decisions are based entirely on constraints and chance. Most of us do not view free-will as a random fluctuation. We experience it as something of our own making.

That said, I don't believe that the theistic approach explains free-will any better. Either God is omniscient and/or omnipotent etc and our actions are already predestined. Or God is not omniscient and/or omnipotent etc and our actions are again left up to chance. Most theists will say that we have a "soul" that makes our decisions, but that's just a word. It doesn't really explain how the decisions are made.

For me, I believe in free-will, it's one of the cornerstones of my theology, but how we have it remains a mystery to me.
Lilithu said:
Either God is omniscient and/or omnipotent etc and our actions are already predestined. Or God is not omniscient and/or omnipotent etc and our actions are again left up to chance
Hi Lilithu, namaste.

I think you have left out one possibility from your scenario above - that of predestination with freewill. How ? we have a choice of 'yes' or 'no' (putting it simply in computer terms), but each descision has a choice as well, so, your first choice has two possible 'paths'. The next possibles (all predestined by possibility), are fourfold - both yes and no from each of the original yes and nos- as you see, the choice increases exponentially.

Don't you think that would allow for both predestination (in that every possible route is accounted for), but you still have choice ?
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Omniscience and freewill mutually exclusive.

Omnipotence says taht God knows everything that we will do, and indeed that God will do, at all points in time. As such, there cannot be free will, as any will which will unerringly make a given choice is not free. God is bound by his own omniscience, as are we.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
JerryL said:
Omniscience and freewill mutually exclusive.

Omnipotence says taht God knows everything that we will do, and indeed that God will do, at all points in time. As such, there cannot be free will, as any will which will unerringly make a given choice is not free. God is bound by his own omniscience, as are we.
jerry, look at the post above yours; I believe I have given a scenario which disproves what you have just posted..........unless you can tell me why I am wrong, of course.;)
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
You seem to be making the "all possible outcomes occur". But if that's the case, you cannot know the single outcome that will occur (presentience), and so it's antithetical to my comment.

If whether I will choose "yes" or "no" can be known with complete certainty, then I have no freewill.

To put it another way. How much choice do I presently have over what I did yesterday? None. If the future and present are fixed, then they are the same as yesterday... I have just as much free will in choosing what I do now as I have in choosing what I do yesterday.
 

Faint

Well-Known Member
michel said:
Hi Lilithu, namaste.

I think you have left out one possibility from your scenario above - that of predestination with freewill. How ? we have a choice of 'yes' or 'no' (putting it simply in computer terms), but each descision has a choice as well, so, your first choice has two possible 'paths'. The next possibles (all predestined by possibility), are fourfold - both yes and no from each of the original yes and nos- as you see, the choice increases exponentially.

Don't you think that would allow for both predestination (in that every possible route is accounted for), but you still have choice ?
I'm going to disagree with this. The truth as I see it is an "either...or..." scenario. Either there is predestination or there is freewill.

We find ourselves in the world and there is already a pre-existing frame within which we have to draw our own designs. Possibilities are basically endless, and yes every decision we make requires more decisions, but options do not control freewill. Options/possibilities can only influence our decisions (like giving a game show contestant the choice of door #1, door #2, door #3, etc.). Ultimately, we decide what we want to do within the boundaries that constrain us. Another example, imagine a bird in an aviary--it can fly this way or that way, up down, left right, whatever--but it can't fly out of the aviary. It has total freedom within the cage. And if it does break out of that, it is now constrained by the earth's gravity. If you argue from the theological perspective, god made the birdcage, but he can't know which direction you will fly. If he did know, that would imply that there is no such thing as chaos, only patterns of varying levels of complexity. This same idea works for nature too. If we are based on simple structures, and our decisions are made solely by complex chemical reactions based on evolution and circumstances, we also have no freewill--we are just complex cells in the universe.

In regards to the thread, if the latter is true (and I can't say for sure that it isn't) no one is responsible for anything because there is no real individual--there is only everything, and everything simply exists as it is, and as it evolved. But I'd rather not believe this, even if it is logical. It means that we are all automatons unable to understand our own programming.

How dull that would be.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Jensa said:
I'm still undecided on it myself, since I don't know if all single-celled organisms react predictably. Maybe one of you guys can enlighten me on that?
They don't always react predictably. For instance, some cells that use their ciliated surface for motion peform a 'tumbling' action that is, according to my textbooks and professors, completely unpredictable.
 

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
Your friend in class was incorrect in his premise. We are not simply bigger versions of the single cell organisms. We have a frontal lobe. They do not. Single cell organisms by their very nature have only one or 2 things they can do given a certain stimuli, while humans have multitude of possible responses from a vastly more varied amount of perceived stimuli.

To put it simply, when Kramer falls off the stool while talking to Regis about the coffee table book, I can perceive this and can laugh, or not. The single cell organism can't even percieve this hilarious event.

Mammals are not single cell organisms, and will not always react the same to the same stimulus, as single cell organisms APPEAR to do. Anyone who has ever broken a horse to bridle or saddle, or anyone who has house trained a dog knows this to be true.

B.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
while humans have multitude of possible responses
They sure do. Trying to fit HOW these multitude of responses apply to evolution is far from an easy task. But since our imagination can go buck wild I'm sure we can find a reason for all of them...:D

~Victor
 

Dreamwolf

Blissful Insomniac
In my opinion, though I do not know if anyone before this had made this point yet or not, I see it as going from one celled to many and it is when you combine those you get free will and in my particular case stubborness! You can look at an example by the statistics of faith healing, now faith healing is just that having faith that you will be healed, however, if you choose to not believe it, it won't work, and if we had no free will it would just work no matter what we believe. The same concept can be applied through multiple facets of daily life.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Actually, I don't think we have free will.

Given a Yes or No choice, either the outcome is fixed before it's made (determanilist) or it is not (non-determanilist).

If it is, there can be no free will because, given the exact set of stimunli to our brain exactly that way, we had no choice but to make that decision.

If the outcome is not fixed, what's the difference? What can possibly be the cause of a different choice under exactly the same circumstances? An element of randomness. And "random" isn't "choice".

I would argue that non-determanistic, non-random occurances are not possible logically.
 

Cynic

Well-Known Member
Jensa said:
On one of the philosophy groups I'm in, someone brought up free will and evolution (yea, big surprise there! ;)). I wanted to get your opinions on what he said:

"Everyone who believes in evolution knows that we evolved from single celled organisms. We also know that single celled organisms are 100% completely predictable. So predictable that scientists are able to literally use simple organisms to do whatever they want, like genetically engineer bacteria to produce hydrogen or to invent a type of algea that converts salt water to fresh water. No one in their right mind could argue that these organisms have any type of choice.
"Free will" is the ability to make choices independantly. I believe it is a superficial and somewhat innacurate concept. The ability to make a choice, is dependant on the brain and the various functions and processes involved when making a choice. Even when you make a conscious choice about something, it does not override emotional and instinctive responses in the brain, which take priority.

-Scientific American Mind, April 2005
The summer heat is oppressive. Mr. M, seated beside his pool, looks
at the cold water. “What could be better than a refreshing dip?” he
thinks. He dives headfi rst into the water and takes a couple of powerful
strokes. Then, suddenly, he stops. He exhales, sinks to the
bottom and simply stares straight ahead. “I’m drowning,” he realizes,
strangely unperturbed. He knows that a few strong kicks would bring him
back to the surface. But he can’t quite bring himself to do so.
As luck would have it, his daughter has been watching from inside the house.
She runs out and dives into the pool to save him. The sight of his daughter shakes
Mr. M from his apathy, and just as she reaches him he propels himself upward,
breaking the surface and gasping for air. Later he tells his family, “I don’t know
what was wrong with me. I just didn’t want to swim anymore.”
What was happening in Mr. M’s brain as he came within seconds of drowning?
How could he so abruptly lose all desire to act, even to save his own life?
Neurologist Dominique Laplane fi rst described such bizarre behavior in 1981.
A doctor at the Hôpital de la Salpêtrière in Paris at the time, Laplane called the
phenomenon “PAP syndrome,” from the French perte d’auto-activation psychique,
or “loss of psychic autoactivation.” (Subsequently, other experts have also
labeled the condition “loss of mental self-activation” or “athymhormic syndrome.”)
Since then, scientists have come to learn that damage to certain areas of
the brain causes patients to lose their motivation as well as their ability to reach
decisions. It is as if they have become mere spectators to their own lives, no longer
actively participating. By examining the brains of these patients, researchers are
fi nding initial clues to how willfulness arises in all of us.

Yes, I’m Starving
Within only a few weeks after the pool incident, Mr. M’s personality underwent a drastic change. The normally active and energetic man became increasingly passive and apathetic. He spent entire days in bed yet felt neither boredom
nor impatience. His family had to remind him constantly to carry out the most basic activities: “Come to dinner! Get dressed! Take a shower!” Such complete lack of motivation is the most obvious symptom of PAP syndrome. If left to their
own devices, patients will remain in bed or on the couch for hours or even days, doing nothing but lying there awake or asleep. They do not make any plans for the future. Hobbies no longer interest them. Their utter spiritlessness extends even
to fundamental needs; Mr. M’s wife said her husband would have starved to death had she not intervened. Yet he never complained of hunger. Incredibly, PAP patients do experience hunger and pain. They simply lack the will to react. Such inaction injured one 18-year-old woman examined at the Hôpital de la Timone in Marseille,
France. During a visit to the beach, her parents had left her sitting in the shade while they went on an afternoon trek. As the sun moved across the sky, the woman became exposed to the scorching rays and remained there for several hours. She felt
the heat but did not make any effort to take cover and suffered second-degree burns.
PAP patients require external stimuli to spur them on. Once they are encouraged, however, they can carry out complex activities as well as they once had. The patients do not often speak, but when asked direct questions they offer rational
answers about their strange behavior. PAP patients also pass intelligence and memory tests, as long as the examiner keeps urging them to continue. Unfortunately, the effects of external stimuli are only temporary. Soon enough, patients
revert back to silence and apathy. What is going on in these patients’ heads?
What are they thinking? PAP patients often respond, “Nothing.” Is that even possible—to be fully awake yet not thinking about anything for hours on end? Evidently so: patients generally describe their mental state as “empty.” Surprisingly, they do not suffer psychologically from this inertness. They are almost incapable
of experiencing emotions. A once fun-loving, now fully apathetic 70-year-old teacher described her reaction to the death of her nephew this way: “It’s quite tragic. Before, I would have been totally devastated. But now, it’s really not such a big deal.” Although patients recognize tragic or joyous occasions as being such, they can
no longer sense or express sadness or joy. Their “feelings,” Laplane notes, are more of an intellectual nature than actual feelings. Some patients develop obsessive behavioral disorders—senseless, repetitive activities such as repeatedly turning a light or the television on and off. While lying in bed, one patient could not stop
himself from continuously counting the ceiling tiles. At times patients irritate people around them with verbal tics, such as constant use of profane words. The cause of these pointless patterns is not known, but perhaps the brain is attempting
to fill the mental emptiness.

Motivation Switched Off
PAP syndrome brings to light an important question facing brain researchers today: How is motivation created to trigger behavior? In PAP patients such as Mr. M, motivational mechanisms seem completely inactive. The patients ignore internal
signals necessary to survival as well as social, moral and civil obligations—the so-called higher aspects of motivation. In addition, they are unable to see themselves in any kind of future scenario and cannot comprehend the consequences
of their inactions. Using processes such as magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI), researchers have recently begun to unveil the secrets behind this condition. So far in every case of PAP syndrome, an acute illness
has been found that affects some area of the basal ganglia deep inside the brain. The ailments have varied from lack of oxygen caused by clogged blood vessels to carbon monoxide poisoning. Two large tumors were discovered in Mr. M’s brain; the larger of the two, in the left hemisphere, was putting pressure on his basal ganglia. The basal ganglia are long, thin structures that have strong connections to the pathways that bring information from sensory organs to the motor regions (which tell muscles to move). The basal ganglia also connect to the frontal lobe, where problem
solving, planning and decision making are done. MRI studies show that in many PAP patients the frontal lobe is not functioning properly. When working on thought exercises, this area is considerably less active than it is in healthy subjects.

(The Authors)
PATRICK VERSTICHEL and PASCALE LARROUY have studied
several PAP patients together. Verstichel is a neurologist
at the Centre Hospitalier Intercommunal de Créteil in
France. Larrouy wrote her doctoral dissertation on brain
pathways that might cause PAP syndrome.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JerryL said:
Actually, I don't think we have free will.

Given a Yes or No choice, either the outcome is fixed before it's made (determanilist) or it is not (non-determanilist).

If it is, there can be no free will because, given the exact set of stimunli to our brain exactly that way, we had no choice but to make that decision.

If the outcome is not fixed, what's the difference? What can possibly be the cause of a different choice under exactly the same circumstances? An element of randomness. And "random" isn't "choice".

I would argue that non-determanistic, non-random occurances are not possible logically.
Wow...:eek:
But yet it's applied to the sciences.
Completely disagree.

~Victor
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Jensa said:
On one of the philosophy groups I'm in, someone brought up free will and evolution (yea, big surprise there! ;)). I wanted to get your opinions on what he said:

"Everyone who believes in evolution knows that we evolved from single celled organisms. We also know that single celled organisms are 100% completely predictable. So predictable that scientists are able to literally use simple organisms to do whatever they want, like genetically engineer bacteria to produce hydrogen or to invent a type of algea that converts salt water to fresh water. No one in their right mind could argue that these organisms have any type of choice.

We evolved from these organisms, so we are only more complicated versions of them. For the people that believe in free-will, how do you explain this? Do you think an organism magically gains the ability to exercise free-will as it evolves?"

I'm still undecided on it myself, since I don't know if all single-celled organisms react predictably. Maybe one of you guys can enlighten me on that?
This conclusion is grossly oversimplified. It is comparison without contrast. They key to the differences is this: We evolved from these organisms. We evolved from single-celled organisms, and our cells share some of the basic rules of biology of single-celled organisms, but we are now not only cells but are comprised of tissues, orgrans, and functional systems - far far beyond the simplicity of a single cell. The overgeneralized leap of logic in the application of freewill to a single cell and then to humanity does not justify its conclusions.
 

Fatmop

Active Member
You can look at an example by the statistics of faith healing, now faith healing is just that having faith that you will be healed, however, if you choose to not believe it, it won't work
Read Dan Barker. He used to participate in 'faith healings' - one thing he noticed was that most faith healers deliberately chose people who had ailments that were not extremely debilitating, ie, if the person is in a wheelchair, make sure they aren't completely paralyzed. There is no documented evidence of a paraplegic ever having been healed by faith... so if you can direct me to those 'statistics,' I would be most grateful. Also, many of those who were supposedly healed had chronic conditions - and they would come to the same healer week after week and show no improvement at all.

I know this isn't the thread for it, but faith healing? Come on.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
JerryL said:
I don't understand what you are saying. What do you believe is "applied to the sciences"?

Neither do I. I misunderstood you now that I re-read it. Sorry.

~Victor
 
Top