Dr. Joshua Swamidass, a theistic evolutionist, joined us recently at TSZ. I think the following comment of his will lead to some interesting and contentious discussion and is worthy of its own thread:
Third, if we drop “Darwinian” to just refer to the current modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, you are right that the scientific account does not find any evidence of direction or planning. I agree with you here and do not dispute this.
So the question becomes, really, is it possible that God could have created a process (like evolution) with a purposeful intent that science could not detect? I think the answer here is obvious. Of course He could. In fact, I would say, unless He wanted us to discern His purpose, we could not.
In my view, then, evolution has a purpose in creating us. Science itself cannot uncover its purpose. I find that out by other means.
Not directing this at you particularly but it makes me chuckle when people anthropomorphize about some mythical omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent yet immaterial entity.
This is what I can’t do, hypothesise the unhypothesiseable
Exactly!!!
The interface! If “God” created a coherent universe with consistent regular properties, how is he going to tinker? Anyone who argues “‘God did it” has to supply an answer to “how?” (not to mention “why?” as in “why not just skip this bit and move straight to heaven?”
Even when you make the rules, they’re the rules!
Perhaps God is not mythical. Have you ever read the Old Testament? Talk about anthropomorphizing God! Just read the book of Jonah for an example.
Or could it be that multiple runs of a genetic algorithm will sometimes come across the same fitness peaks because they are doing a random walk on the same fitness landscape? Especially when they are located pretty darn close together on that landscape to begin with.
Possibly due to the odd discussion that takes place at TSZ on biblical inerrancy, I have dipped into some OT passages. Whilst some of what I’ve read can be quite entertaining, I think Jefferson was quite right to eliminate the whole OT from his bible.
phoodoo,
If so, then he’s in violent agreement with the rest of us. As walto keeps emphasizing, the knowledge doesn’t bring about the outcome; it results from the outcome.
That assumes the peak is accessible in the first place and not trapped in some fitness peak which prevents finding that common peak. The walk is therefore not random but is expected toe avoid convergent patterns. Natural selection sustaining an existing feature should not be equivocated with natural selection creating that feature in the first place.
The fact that it resides on a fitness peak today does not imply it evolved to that peak via natural selection especially if there is a moat of selection preventing arrival at the base of the hill in the first place. Someone without insulin in the present day will naturally die (without medical help). Hence, humans with insulin are at a fitness peak. This fact however doesn’t imply insulin evolved to the present peak since a random walk would not arrive to even the base of that peak in the first place since the creature lacking insulin would be dead. Dead creatures don’t walk, randomly or otherwise.
Wow. I forgot how much theists/IDers/creationists hate the word random. You will invent all sorts of traps and moats to deny the concept. I guess I should have prefaced my comment with a trigger warning.
The god-of-the-gaps seems to always have to hide in ever-diminishing gaps.
Now it seems he lives in a moat on a fitness landscape.
Yes, I am being flippant, but that’s the mood I am in.
No way. Too scary!
Only that I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. Let me say it a few more times: I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge. I’m talking about purpose, not knowledge.
But what are you talking about?
Glen Davidson
Interesting you should mention insulin. Of course your scenario is silly. There are plenty of creatures lacking insulin. It appears to be limited to vertebrates, though homologs with different functions are present throughout Metazoa. Your assumption seems to be that insulin, according to evolutionists, must have poofed into existence in a species identical to modern humans except for that single lack. No, poofing is a creationist thing.
I might also point out that insulin is nice evidence for common descent of vertebrates and, given the homologs in other species, of Metazoa.
Here’s a review I found in a few clicks, in case anyone is interested.
Another thing you overlook is that, given gene x environment and gene x gene interactions, that fitness surface is always moving. I say another thing, but it’s really the same thing approached from a different direction.
Of course you have also tried to change the subject. You claimed that convergence is evidence of intelligent design. When it was pointed out that selection could also explain convergence, you launched into a claim that we can’t infer that selection was necessarily responsible for any given case of convergence. But all that was needed to refute your argument was that selection be a plausible alternative. And that you have not refuted.
Question: Why am I unable to use html tags to embed a link in the post just above? OK, it worked the third time I tried to edit it.
dazz:
…100 times or so.
Chill, dude. Has it occurred to you that knowledge might be a means toward achieving a particular purpose?
I explained this earlier in the thread:
So, it has been fun to watch this conversation unfold, and being at a conference and swamped with work (I’m submitting two papers this week, and three grants next week), I have not been able to participate.
I wanted to just remind everyone that we are not the first people to think about these issues. I think one idea particularly important (and to which I am drawn) that I think resolves this paradox is Molinism. This, of course, is exactly what Keiths is talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism
The could explain how things that are “random” can still be purposeful. The proposal here is that God has full knowledge of all possible worlds, and then chooses to actualize the “best possible” world. From our point of view, evolution still looks random (and still even could be fundamentally random), but God exerts His will by choosing the reality that leads to us. This proposal resolves several key challenges.
1. It solves the logical problem of theodicy.
2. It resolves the conflict of free-will vs. predestination
3. It makes clear that evolution, even if intrinsically random, can be purposeful and predetermined.
4. It is not mutual exclusive with other mode’s of divine action.
5. It explains why we see a world governed by natural laws.
(btw, ketihs, are you a philosopher? I really appreciate your thoughtful posts. You seem to be a careful thinker)
Looks to me like you smuggled god within time right there. But anyway, still think you’re wrong: “instantiating a world that leads to a desired outcome” sounds like causation: it’s not just knowing the result, he’s determining it. Determining the result of an non-deterministic process (timelessly or whatever) sounds like an oxymoron.
swamidass,
Thanks Dr. Swamidass. I heard about middle knowledge from WLC, but does the concept really help when it comes to non-deterministic processes like evolution? I mean, what counterfactuals can be known about random events?
from the wikipedia article:
I don’t think this applies to random or non-deterministic events because there’s no world in which A was placed in C, and A would be guaranteed to randomly produce X
It also seems that middle knowledge doesn’t solve the fatalism problem on it’s own: if A being placed in C always leads to the same choice of A, then there’s no libertarian free will: the choice is fully determined by the initial conditions. Also if God causes the initial conditions he is indirectly causing the precise choice of A
dazz,
Hey dazz,
I think I sense something deeper going on here.
Is there some special reason why this is troubling you that you might want to share?
For me this all is a silly exercise. I have no problem with God being totally sovereign over everything that happens. In fact I think it’s cool and comforting that there is not a single event in the universe that God is not in total control of. Randomness does not exist If it did then we could not be assured that it would all work out in the end as it was supposed to,
God’s sovereignty does not eliminate my freedom because I can still do what I want.
I think libertarian freedom is mostly an incoherent attempt to deny God’s sovereignty. I think Molinism makes God a helpless spectator instead of the powerful actor he is.
but I don’t usually get too worked up about it 😉
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Gentlemen, I think compatibalist free will requires not only doing what we want to, but doing it BECAUSE we want to. So, e.g, if we are hypnotized to want to do everything we are made to do, we would be doing what we want, but would not be free.
In a word, my intuitions are with dazz’s here. The other stuff is just Christian apologetics, as I think FMM’s last post makes clear. If one really needs to feel that God is responsible for every little thing, but we’re free anyhow, one can concoct a theory that produces that result. It’s not a sensible theory though, I don’t think, no matter how comforting it might be.
I would agree. There is no Divine hypnotism in my view.
I’m not sure why you would think there was
peace
Hmm, no, I’m not having an epiphany or anything like that. All I’m doing is trying to understand Dr. Swamidass’ position on evolution having the purpose of producing humans among other things. Doesn’t seem coherent to me but what do I know
Note the ‘e.g.’ FMM. Anything that’s inconsistent with me doing what I want BECAUSE I want to is inconsistent with compatibalism. God being a master hypnotist is not required to blow up the position. Predetermination does that too.
‘Pre-destination,’ I meant to write. Why and how that’s different from predetermination (which IS compatible) is a mystery, admittedly. But never mind–dazz and I get to have those too, no?
So in the middle knowledge example, God causing circumstances C, which in turn cause A to will X would be predestination, not predetermination? None maybe? Man, this is confusing
dazz,
Well, I take it that all forms of predestination are forms of predetermination. So my question is, if physical determinism (itself a form of predetermination) is compatible with free will, why isn’t predestination by an omnipotent being? But somehow that idea rankles. I mean, whose motives etc really matter here?
Here are the choices:
1. My long held compatibalism makes no sense. (phoodoo’s and Rich Hughes’ position–one’s a libertarian, one a hard determinist)
2. Every sort of predetermination is consistent with free will (FMM’s position)
3. There’s some way to distinguish intentionally set from non-intentional prior conditions. (I find this the most appealing, but I don’t know how to do it)
ETA: I apologize in advance if I’ve misconstrued anybody’s position here.
That’s interesting, I thought the relevant distinction was that knowledge doesn’t cause things to happen. Therefore there’s no incompatibility between foreknowledge and free will. I guess predetermination doesn’t cause anything to happen either
Seems obvious though, that if one is a determinist and also a compatibilist, there’s no reason why both physical and divine determinism shouldn’t be compatible with free will. Arguing for one while rejecting the other seems ridiculous.
Going to need to read that another thousand times to see if I get it. LOL
It is. If you had the information completely describing the exact state of the universe and every particle, wave etc in it [at any one moment]*, you would still not be able to extrapolate forward and predict the future or extrapolate backwards and read the past.
ETA *at any one moment
Excuse my ignorance. Is that a known principle or for currently lacking the necessary resources Alan? Do we know (scientifically) whether the world is deterministic or not?
I think the decay of radio-isotopes is random for any particular nucleus rather than deterministic, though rates can be very accurately predicted statistically. That simple fact confirms (for me) that this universe cannot be deterministic.
Uh-oh. That’s the position I was hoping someone could make a case for. 🙁
I think the foreknowledge biz is entirely separate here–as you pointed out 100 times. I was discussing (as you requested) only the question of someone putting things in place to ensure that action X takes place 50 days from now. Because, knowledge doesn’t cause things to happen. “Logical determinism” and “epistemic determinism” are just confusions.
Anyhow, if you’re right that the position I was taking is ridiculous (as it may very well be), then one is left with 1a. Libertarianism; 1b. Hard determinism; and 2. “Comprehensive Compatibalism” (and maybe one I didn’t mention above, the utter randomness of human activity).
ETA: I’ll just add that I THINK I could create some kind of definition for my “Half Compatibalism” limiting the causal intentions to agents that would preclude predestination. But I don’t know if I could make a case for it that wouldn’t be completely ad hoc. I was kind of hoping YOU could! Maybe keiths can come through here….
Of course, it is true to say we may not have spotted the pattern yet. But individual unstable nuclei do decay apparently spontaneously
This sounds like what you are saying is God didn’t make this particular world, he just chose it from a list of all possible worlds (made by someone else?) Or are you saying God did in fact create this particular world, and the rules within it, in which case, we are back to where we started.
Doesn’t that seem like a really contorted rationalization, and furthermore it would seem to necessitate at least two Gods. One who made the rules for the world, and one who chose the world without deciding how it would go. Aren’t we getting into crazy land with this thought?
Well, first off my apologies because I didn’t mean to call your position ridiculous. I managed to misread you again, thought you were saying that compatibilism works both for physical and divine predetermination.
Why not take a fourth position, namely: the world is not deterministic/predetermined and therefore there’s no conflict to solve? As Alan points out, it seems plausible. There are plenty undeterministic phenomenons out there
The fine tuning argument has the same fatal problem
Well, it’s a problem when you observe reality, accept what you see, then try to fit a theistic explanation to reality. Much simpler to be a Young Earth Creationist!
I find strict determinism akin to religious belief. The quantum equations are deterministic, but they also imply that we cannot observe causes at the quantum level.
We could call quantum events stochastic rather than random. We don’t have any prospects of telling the difference. The probability distributions are indistinguishable from theoretical random.
Observing reality is the entire reason for believing in a deity. Because we simply have no better explanation for reality.
phoodoo,
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity
I agree that it’s a fallacy, but I’m not sure that QUITE captures it. It’s an appeal to ignorance to get to his favorite solution–even though that is way more problematic.
Maybe it’s the limiting the possible solutions one.
It was only a few days ago that you were insisting that quantum phenomena showed only our epistemic limitations rather than indicating any actual randomness in the world (a position that I indicated I joined you in wishing were true….) Now, it’s a religious position.
Anyhow, your answer today exhibits equal confidence, so we at least have THAT going for us!
I admit you and I are in the same boat, I think. I have absolutely no explanation for why there is a universe and you don’t either.
I don’t hate it. William Dembski joined the ID movement because of his essay, Randomness by Design.
It was the best paper he ever wrote:
https://billdembski.com/documents/2002.09.rndmnsbydes.pdf
stcordova,
So to show how little you hate randomness, you quote a word salad that essentially says randomness is not really random but some smart tactic that god uses to confuse people. Not impressed, sorry
I think that’s FMM’s position. And I find I don’t have a great criticism that doesn’t bring down compatibalism generally. Re determinism just being false because of, e.g., quantum phenomena, I don’t think randomness is what those who think they are free to do what they want have in mind.
True. I guess a world with deterministic and random stuff still requires some sort of compatibilism to justify free will
I think that paper is really interesting. Thanks.
I agree.
Dembsky quote analysis:
Deepity Rating = 10
Content Rating = 0
Did you look at the paper? It’s not really an area of expertise for me, but I think it’s pretty interesting. The God stuff hasn’t emerged….yet. The paper is about how randomness ought to be considered as relative to particular patterns rather than as “chance.” Without that change (which removes “probability” from the picture), random number generators can’t really demonstrate randomness.
Again, I don’t know if he’s right–or even if this suggestion was completely refuted back in the mid-90s–but it’s an interesting thesis, and it seems (to me at least) to be pretty well-argued there.
I haven’t, but I will read it later today.
I would also like to see some other mathematicians’ reviews of it, if I can find them.