Wednesday, May 16, 2007
What's the difference between you, and a fruit fly?
Science, religion and philosophy are pub conversations for the likes us, single and drunk twenty-something* Londoners. They're things that other people do seriously, but which we sit judging from our cosy alcoves with the pints lining up.
This isn't to say we don't take them on with a straight-face, or that we can't have arguments. And the arguments usually occur when it comes to free-will and morality. The hedonists amongst us prefer to say neither exists: thus we can carry on glibly partying, thanks Science, thanks Determinism! A few others take a different view . . . . .
. . . . . Morality and free-will are a natural and obvious part of life, they say. Since evolution created them in us, they will occur to differing degrees in other creatures too. And if Science hasn't caught up with that self-evident fact, operating instead on the basis that 'if we can't explain it, it doesn't exist', Science is all the worse for it. Or in fact, no longer Science . . . . . Someone at this point usually objects, that surely we can only expect free-will and morality to have evolved in Humans? But this is a curious remnant of the religious view of human exceptionalism, something you can't have alongside an acceptance of evolution. And the term anthropomorphism is neatly rebutted by the term anthropodenial . . . . . Someone else might add, but isn't the universe deterministic, and that everything - your latest hairstyle, your choice of white - predicted by the Big Bang? Roger Penrose's name comes to the rescue, along with some stuff about quantum mechanics. The more daring suggest that the very explicability of the universe by humans is an argument in favour of its conscious design, and the mystery of 'before the Big Bang' in no way rules that out . . . . . Then someone or other might add how Darwin had identified forms of morality as having evolved in many species - including Pelicans, of all things - and isn't this kind of real-world-first methodology something rather lacking in Dawkins's delineated, logical approach? The conversation tends to shift at that point, because Wikipedia hasn't prepared anyone for this . . . . .
Why am I telling you this? Well, these rehearsals for a serious life that will never happen are going to have to move on a bit. Because: FRUIT FLIES HAVE FREE WILL. So, thanks, Science! I'm looking forward to the local a bit more than usual now.
*-a term that holds, so say we all, even if the something happens now to be a whole decade.
This isn't to say we don't take them on with a straight-face, or that we can't have arguments. And the arguments usually occur when it comes to free-will and morality. The hedonists amongst us prefer to say neither exists: thus we can carry on glibly partying, thanks Science, thanks Determinism! A few others take a different view . . . . .
. . . . . Morality and free-will are a natural and obvious part of life, they say. Since evolution created them in us, they will occur to differing degrees in other creatures too. And if Science hasn't caught up with that self-evident fact, operating instead on the basis that 'if we can't explain it, it doesn't exist', Science is all the worse for it. Or in fact, no longer Science . . . . . Someone at this point usually objects, that surely we can only expect free-will and morality to have evolved in Humans? But this is a curious remnant of the religious view of human exceptionalism, something you can't have alongside an acceptance of evolution. And the term anthropomorphism is neatly rebutted by the term anthropodenial . . . . . Someone else might add, but isn't the universe deterministic, and that everything - your latest hairstyle, your choice of white - predicted by the Big Bang? Roger Penrose's name comes to the rescue, along with some stuff about quantum mechanics. The more daring suggest that the very explicability of the universe by humans is an argument in favour of its conscious design, and the mystery of 'before the Big Bang' in no way rules that out . . . . . Then someone or other might add how Darwin had identified forms of morality as having evolved in many species - including Pelicans, of all things - and isn't this kind of real-world-first methodology something rather lacking in Dawkins's delineated, logical approach? The conversation tends to shift at that point, because Wikipedia hasn't prepared anyone for this . . . . .
Why am I telling you this? Well, these rehearsals for a serious life that will never happen are going to have to move on a bit. Because: FRUIT FLIES HAVE FREE WILL. So, thanks, Science! I'm looking forward to the local a bit more than usual now.
*-a term that holds, so say we all, even if the something happens now to be a whole decade.
Comments:
<< Home
"Science assumes that effects have causes, and that if we understand the causes well enough we can predict the effects. But if so, our experience of being free to make choices is an illusion, since we are in effect just sophisticated robots responding to stimuli"
i found this assertion strange. as though cause and effect and free will are mutually exclusive? certainly we have the freedom to make choices in life (which is evidenced by a group of scientists who chose to spend their time glueing flies to a torque) and we are also subject to cause and effect. bird eats fruit, bird excretes fruit, if not, bird dies, unless somebody or something or an action steps in randomly to stop that chain of events. bird did however choose which fruit to eat. and his choices in future will be mediated by a rudimentary understanding of cause and effect which if he's clever will lead to a long and happy life. to me cause and effect leads to self-limiting free will, also known as sensible choices. evolutionary processes pre-determine much, but within that scope there has always been choice. but it's not mandatory. you could just eat crap and die young in a haze of cream puffs and coffee! that's good too. or was this a post about being down the pub? long live British pub life, then. mwahs!
i found this assertion strange. as though cause and effect and free will are mutually exclusive? certainly we have the freedom to make choices in life (which is evidenced by a group of scientists who chose to spend their time glueing flies to a torque) and we are also subject to cause and effect. bird eats fruit, bird excretes fruit, if not, bird dies, unless somebody or something or an action steps in randomly to stop that chain of events. bird did however choose which fruit to eat. and his choices in future will be mediated by a rudimentary understanding of cause and effect which if he's clever will lead to a long and happy life. to me cause and effect leads to self-limiting free will, also known as sensible choices. evolutionary processes pre-determine much, but within that scope there has always been choice. but it's not mandatory. you could just eat crap and die young in a haze of cream puffs and coffee! that's good too. or was this a post about being down the pub? long live British pub life, then. mwahs!
One of Daniel Dennett's books - 'Freedom Evolves' I think - does a rather good, if long, job of demolishing the apparent discrepancy between concepts of 'free will' and 'cause and effect'. Perhaps not a read for the pub, though.
"The hedonists amongst us prefer to say neither exists"
Hedonism says nothing on the issue of free will. In fact, it is based on an implicit assumption that free will exists, and that one should take advantage of that free will to maximise one's pleasure. It is a deeply ethical philosophy, in that it concerns itself with ethical issues, and questions of morality (how achieving optimum pleasure and minimum suffering for oneself affects the pleasure or suffering of others) are central to its discussions.
Denial of either free will or morality (or both) is neither hedonistic in the philosophical nor the colloquial sense.
The article sounds interesting though. The link doesn't work - is that fixable?
Hedonism says nothing on the issue of free will. In fact, it is based on an implicit assumption that free will exists, and that one should take advantage of that free will to maximise one's pleasure. It is a deeply ethical philosophy, in that it concerns itself with ethical issues, and questions of morality (how achieving optimum pleasure and minimum suffering for oneself affects the pleasure or suffering of others) are central to its discussions.
Denial of either free will or morality (or both) is neither hedonistic in the philosophical nor the colloquial sense.
The article sounds interesting though. The link doesn't work - is that fixable?
Ah, it works again.
There are some philosophically unsound points that need highlighting. I hesitate to say that they are part of the article, as I cannot know for sure what is the assertion of the scientists and what is the assertion of the reporter. Nonetheless, these are my concerns:
1) The fact that something (in this case the fruit flies' behaviour) can't be explained by humans is neither a case for or against an idea.
2) Chaos is not an argument for free will. It may seem to open up the possibility of free will, but one cannot assert that something exists (e.g. free will) because the possibility is not precluded by something else (e.g. chaos). Furthermore, the cause-effect tradition in science does not preclude the possibility of free will; the cause could be a decision (for example).
3) The discussion of 'chaotic control' (towards the end of the article) posits a perfectly credible hypothesis that 'spontaneity' may be an evolutionary advantage. This may well be the case, but it gives no grounds to assume that that spontaneity is guided by free will; it may equally be governed by determinism.
4) Lastly, the experiment itself (as reported) seemed to touch on the notion that free will could be accurately tested by depriving the flies of light. This seems a naive and untenable assumption, as any argument for or against determinism will have to take account of the processes happening inside the fly as well as external stimuli.
For me, it was a disappointing article from New Scientist, perhaps in part due to its length, perhaps because the experiment showed nothing, or perhaps because (although it didn't have to) it didn't really argue anything, perhaps taking at best a slightly pro-free-will stance through its rhetoric and omission. It might be something to talk about down the pub, but anyone discussing this seriously (without the pints lined up) won't be paying much attention to this article.
There are some philosophically unsound points that need highlighting. I hesitate to say that they are part of the article, as I cannot know for sure what is the assertion of the scientists and what is the assertion of the reporter. Nonetheless, these are my concerns:
1) The fact that something (in this case the fruit flies' behaviour) can't be explained by humans is neither a case for or against an idea.
2) Chaos is not an argument for free will. It may seem to open up the possibility of free will, but one cannot assert that something exists (e.g. free will) because the possibility is not precluded by something else (e.g. chaos). Furthermore, the cause-effect tradition in science does not preclude the possibility of free will; the cause could be a decision (for example).
3) The discussion of 'chaotic control' (towards the end of the article) posits a perfectly credible hypothesis that 'spontaneity' may be an evolutionary advantage. This may well be the case, but it gives no grounds to assume that that spontaneity is guided by free will; it may equally be governed by determinism.
4) Lastly, the experiment itself (as reported) seemed to touch on the notion that free will could be accurately tested by depriving the flies of light. This seems a naive and untenable assumption, as any argument for or against determinism will have to take account of the processes happening inside the fly as well as external stimuli.
For me, it was a disappointing article from New Scientist, perhaps in part due to its length, perhaps because the experiment showed nothing, or perhaps because (although it didn't have to) it didn't really argue anything, perhaps taking at best a slightly pro-free-will stance through its rhetoric and omission. It might be something to talk about down the pub, but anyone discussing this seriously (without the pints lined up) won't be paying much attention to this article.
Jesus, you get that far? Within five minutes of well-intentioned wittering on the subject, the vast amounts of alcohol take their toll and conversation swiftly moves on to more relevant stuffs like that girl over there's (yeah that one, don't look so fucking obvious)choice of dress or how much that bloke with the serpent-like hair reminds you of Kate Bush.
Maybe I'm just not intellektuwal enough?
Maybe I'm just not intellektuwal enough?
A lot of pointless people imagine for themselves a lot of comfort from their supposed lack of free will, it's almost like a religion. When you have an intuition for who they are, it is great fun winding them up with this stuff. You should try Ms Suburbia, I think you'd enjoy it :)
Unfortunately most of my friends are too advanced to allow me that, erm, freedom... but I do prey on those of lesser intellect than myself. Fruit flies, f'instance.
Post a Comment
<< Home
