echoes

Interesting.... right now I am also writing a paper for my intro phil class. My topic is essentially compatibilism; specifically, whether or not determinism and the principle of alternative possibilities are compatible. Part of it requires evaluating the arguments given by Ayer and Chisholm on the subject. I also decided to write it as a dialogue.

I suppose I can post my paper here when it's done. But it's due tomorrow so right now I need to get back to work.

Jabberwock

Haha, I'm in the same boat. We read Ayer and Holbach, and I will have to argue against the existence of free will. Mine's due Tuesday afternoon. Good luck!

echoes

Well I've got some fantastic news. I turned in the paper yesterday, and today at the end of class my professor told me I have to rewrite it because department policy is to not accept dialogues.

In hindsight I feel foolish for not having asked in advance if it'd be alright, but at the same time, I never would have guessed that it might be a problem so it never occurred to me that I would even need to ask permission.

Is this a common policy for college/university philosophy departments to have? My professor explained the policy briefly- it seemed to boil down to the fact that some students couldn't write a dialogue to save their life, so it would be unfair to require us to write a dialogue, and even making that an option would be unfair, and also simply because of "precedent."

I was kind of in shock at the time so I may have missed some details of her explanation- I think I'll go see her this afternoon to ask her about it. I doubt that I can successfully appeal this policy, but with 4 final exams next week I have neither the time or interest to rewrite a paper.

John Page

Bummer. How about some swift edits to show that one person may have multiple views (hehe, relativism) and it was really a monolog from somebody with MPD (thanks Koy)? New title "In two minds - can we really be free from ourselves and the nursery rhymes we learned on our mother's knee? By Pooh. Poh wrote it."

Cheers, John

Jabberwock

Wow. How shitty is that? I haven't asked my professor... I guess I'll find out when I turn it in.

Jabberwock

Well, here goes.
-----------------------------------------
Two dialogues between Sophia and Pistos

I. Pistos: Well, Sophia, that certainly was an engaging discussion in today’s class. I must say, after reading the essay by Dr. Gish, I am inclined to agree that evolution theory is not scientific at all. It seems to me as though evolutionary scientists accept a great deal of their “theory” on faith alone.

Sophia: Why is that, Pistos?

Pistos: I agree with Gish’s three criterion of a good scientific theory – that it must be directly observable, testable, and falsifiable. No man has ever observed any large evolutionary change. In addition, evolution cannot be tested by the experimental method, and the theory as it stands today is unfalsifiable.

Sophia: I must disagree with you on all three points. Yes, evolution on a large scale is not observable, but this is only because evolution takes place on extremely large time scales. We’ve only been seriously observing the natural world for about 200 years now. Gish’s claim that we must observe “a fish evolve into an amphibian” or an “ape evolve into a man” is ludicrous. But, Pistos, you must remember that evolutionary theory did not come into existence for no reason at all. While we cannot directly observe evolution, we can observe its effects. From its effects, we then infer to the best explanation. We observe many effects of evolution: in the fossil record, in homological structures, in molecular biology, in genetics, in-

Pistos: I’m skeptical of this claim. Give me a concrete example of the effects of evolution.

Sophia: All right, Pistos. Certain viruses, called “endogenous retroviruses” or ERV for short, work by inserting their genetic material into the hosts’ genome. (The Human Immunodeficiency Virus, or HIV, is an example of an endogenous retrovirus.) If the infection is in a germ cell, it may get passed on to the next generation of organisms. If this happened to, say, my grandmother, then her daughter would carry the mutation in each of her body’s cells. This mutation would then be passed down to me. It would be astoundingly unlikely to find the same mutation – at the exact same spot in the genome – in two unrelated individuals. Well, lo and behold, we share ERV genetic material with chimps and gorillas that is found nowhere else in the animal kingdom! We also share certain ERV genes with chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons; but not with, say, dogs. {1}

Pistos: Well, that seems like a fair example. This genetic data does appear to support evolution. It is also difficult to explain this in the framework of special creation. But this does not prove that evolution is true.

Sophia: Of course not, Pistos. Nothing outside of mathematics can be proven absolutely. However, there is a vast amount of knowledge that points to evolution being true, just as the ERV data does. Once again, paleontology, anatomy, embryology, molecular biology, genetics, and many other lines of evidence fit perfectly with evolution. Their data is also very difficult to explain under creationism.

Pistos: The reason these “evidences” agree so well with evolution is that evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable. You can twist any piece of evidence to fit your theory. Darwin said that we should expect to find “innumerable fossil transitions.” When paleontologists failed to find these, Gould and Eldredge proposed their theory of ‘punctuated equilibrium,’ which claims that the lack of transitional fossils supports evolution instead of falsifying it. This is bad science.

Sophia: This is untrue. Punctuated equilibrium is not based on just a lack of evidence for gradualism. Gould and Eldredge based their theory on original work examining two different phylogenetic lines: Phacopsid trilobites and pulmonate gastropods. {2}
I can think of several observations that would falsify evolution, just off the top of my head. A hominid fossil in Paleozoic rock would do the trick. Any organism with a radically different genetic material, any angiosperm (flowering plant) fossil in Cambrian rock, vestigial feathers in humans, an organism with a different genetic code, or finding a wild elephant in the Pacific islands would also falsify evolution thoroughly and conclusively.
Gish’s other criterion (that a scientific theory must be subjected to the experimental method) is purely his own, and is not accepted by scientists or philosophers today. Popper said that a scientific theory must be tested by experiment or observation. We observe the effects of evolution today, namely, the effects I already described to you. Gish’s demand that we must manipulate variables to observe large-scale evolutionary changes is, once again, ludicrous. Galileo did not manipulate the moons of Jupiter to determine their motion; Newton did not alter the gravitational constant to formulate his laws of physics; Einstein did not hop in a rocket ship traveling 99% the speed of light to deduce Relativity.

Pistos: I am convinced. The theory of Evolution seems to pass Popper’s requirements for a scientific theory with flying colors.

Sophia: I’m glad you agree. However, this discussion is virtually irrelevant to today’s science. No scientist or philosopher today agrees completely with Popper’s criteria for a scientific theory. I spend time debunking Gish’s assertions only because the creationists have latched onto them. As we discussed in class, Pierre Duhem argued in the 19th century that no theory is falsifiable, because testing it relies so heavily on other auxiliary hypotheses.

Pistos: How, then, does one decide whether an idea, hypothesis, or theory can be considered “scientific?”

Sophia: Therein lies the problem, Pistos. Philosophers have been debating this issue for over a century. According to Duhem, no theory can be falsified if you make suitable adjustments in your hypotheses. It then follows that either any theory can be called scientific, or no theories at all can be. Surely you would agree that astrology is not scientific?

Pistos: Of course I would. If it were, Miss Cleo would have seen her fraud charges coming.

Sophia: Right. But according to Duhem, astrology and tarot card reading can never be falsified. If your fortune-teller is sufficiently dishonest, they will claim that any life event supports their “theory.” I can’t say for certain what Duhem’s conclusions were, because we did not read his works. Many other theories of science have been proposed, some better than others. David Hume claimed that all science is based on induction, and is therefore irrational (but as you know, Hume’s view of science was terribly oversimplified). Logical Positivism suggests that something is scientific only if it can be verified, but that idea is no longer in vogue. Thomas Kuhn argued science is simply that which scientists do. To figure out whether a theory is scientific, you must observe the scientists. {3}

Pistos: Kuhn’s argument seems very circular. With which of these schools of thought do you agree?

Sophia: I agree with Philip Kitcher’s requirements for science, with one small addition. Kitcher lists three characteristics of a good scientific theory: testability, unification, and fecundity. To this, I would add objectivity. Objectivity is only reached when the scientific community can discard biases for or against particular theories. Scientists frequently must admit their own error.

Pistos: So we have to trust that scientists will be honest, and will not twist data to support their pet theories?

Sophia: That would hardly be productive! Scientists are not saints, devoid of biases and prejudices. The reason this system has been so successful in the past is that scientific works must be subjected to peer review. It is in this process that the pseudeoscience is weeded out. It has been said that if you propose a theory to 100 scientists, you will end up with 101 opinions. Theories based on dogmatic thought and presupposition of the conclusion will end up in the dustbin of history, along with phrenology, cold fusion, the cloning claims of the Raelians, alchemy, and the crackpot biological deterministic theories of the 19th century. {4} The only bias shared by all scientists is towards truth.

Pistos: Of course, science is not infallible. However, you have convinced me that this scientific method you have described is our best way to discover truth.

Sophia: Wonderful! Let us continue our discussion tomorrow.


II. Sophia: Good morning, Pistos. Have you had a chance to think about the ideas we discussed yesterday?

Pistos: I certainly have, Sophia. You presented a strong case for evolution. And, I must say, this evolutionary theory distresses me. If man is nothing but an animal, a product of his environment, then what reason do we have to behave morally? Why not do whatever it takes to propagate our genes at the expense of others, including murder, rape, and theft? If rape is beneficial to my genetic material, then why should I refrain from doing so? If there is no God, why should we act with decency?

Sophia: Pistos, you are making a grave error by equating evolutionary theory with atheism. You make another error by equating atheism with a complete lack of morals. These ideas are not totally inclusive with each other. Many theists incorporate the scientific evidence into their faith; they decide that God is the “who” of creation, while evolution is the “how.” Even Pope John Paul II has decreed that Christians should look at evolution as the method by which God works. {5} Science is agnostic by nature, not atheistic. By definition, we scientists look for natural causes for natural events. We do not consider the supernatural – but that does not mean that we absolutely deny its existence.
In addition, there is a very good reason that we act ethically. A society in which every member rapes, murders, and steals to his liking will not last very long! It is evolutionarily beneficial to our species, and to the community of life as a whole, if we act morally. Not that we have any choice in the matter, however.

Pistos: What do you mean? Of course we have choice in the matter! I can randomly decide to murder, to cheat, or to steal; I can also decide to save a life, to be honest, or to donate to charities. How can you possibly claim that I have no choice regarding my actions, when it is overwhelmingly clear that I do?

Sophia: I am reminded of the plight of Philonous in Berkeley’s Dialogues, trying to convince Hylas that his (supposedly) common-sense view is drastically wrong. No, Pistos, we do not have free will. We are simply biological creatures, slaves to our genetic, environmental, and subconscious influences. Let me ask you a question: where do you propose this “free will” comes from, Pistos?

Pistos: Well, I suppose it comes from the brain, just like our consciousness.

Sophia: I am going to take a reductionist approach to the problem. Our brain is a collection of neurons, along with a few types of support cells, correct?

Pistos: Correct.

Sophia: And what are cells, but a collection of molecules?

Pistos: Well, I suppose so.

Sophia: Granted, the molecules are astoundingly complex, but a neuron basically functions as an on/off switch. Pistos, can a molecule have free will? Is there a rudimentary consciousness that weighs choices and decides to react or abstain from reacting?

Pistos: No, that is absurd.

Sophia: So if one molecule cannot have free will, can two molecules together have free will? Can 50 or 100 or 10,000 molecules working together possibly decide on something apart from the interactions that flow out of the laws of chemistry and physics?

Pistos: You are quite correct, Sophia. I suppose if I want to defend the idea of free will, I cannot do it using a physical model. Therefore, I postulate an entity that exists outside of our current material world, that is responsible for both our consciousness and our free will. You should recognize that this entity is often called a “soul” or “spirit.” The soul, according to theologians, is the eternal essence that will receive the eternal punishments or rewards for our actions in this lifetime.

Sophia: Very good. Continuing in the theme of Berkeley, I reject this mind / matter dualism for the same reasons as Philonous. Matter consists of particles in motion, pulling and pushing on each other. In the case of our brains, the pushing and pulling results in chemically-gated ion channels opening, causing an action potential to fire and influence other neurons. Now, you admit that this soul is entirely immaterial. How, then, can this immaterial entity exert a push or pull on physical substances? Berkeley formulated a good argument against dualism; he simply took it the wrong way. Where he denied the existence of matter, I deny the existence of mind.

Pistos: Hmmm... I am not convinced. If my soul exists outside of this material world, it is not inconceivable that it exerts its forces by a currently unknown mechanism.

Sophia: That is true. Let us take this one step further. Pistos, can you further define this “soul” you describe? What are its consequences for our existence and being?

Pistos: I suppose that the soul must be what is responsible for our consciousness and free will. It must draw on our experiences, mood, and motivation to make decisions.

Sophia: Well, your hypothesis runs into another problem. It seems memory, mood, and cognition are all explainable by purely scientific and materialistic methods. We can explain memory in terms of new neuronal connections being formed in the hippocampus, among other things. Moods are clearly physical, as they can be influenced by physical methods. If I give you a dopamine agonist, your mood will improve. If I give you a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (like Prozac), you will most likely become happier. If I inject you with testosterone, you will become more aggressive. {6}

Pistos: You are correct.

Sophia: Your cognition also depends heavily on your physical state. If I give you a frontal lobotomy and cut certain connections in your frontal lobes, you will lose motivation. So what can this soul be, if it is independent of memories, moods, and cognitive states?

Pistos: You make excellent points, Sophia. Let me ask you this: can this thing called “consciousness” be explained by purely physical interactions?

Sophia: Not yet. This is referred to by neuropsychologists as “the hard problem.” But I am confident that science will soon be able to answer this question. Let me show you one final piece of empirical evidence that argues against freedom of the will. In 1985, Benjamin Libet performed a study on several volunteers using electroencephalograph (EEG) recordings. The sensors were placed on the cerebral cortex to record any brain activity. The volunteers were told to move their hand whenever they felt like it. The movement could be at any time, whenever the urge happened to strike. The students also reported the precise moment they “decided” to move their hand, by observing a large clock that made it possible to measure fractions of a second. Here’s the kicker: with incredible consistency, the EEG reported a wave of brain activity (called the Readiness Potential or RP) before the student-reported sensation of free will. On average, the RP was produced about 350-400 milliseconds before the free will sensation! The hand movement followed the conscious decision by about 200 milliseconds, on average. The results of this study were stunning. It seems as though something in our brain chemistry really does present our consciousness with the idea of free will! {7}

Pistos: Couldn’t this just be an error in the student’s report of when the free will urge occurred?

Sophia: That is a possible consideration. So the experiment was repeated with a more complex methodology designed to eliminate this problem, and the results were the same. In all cases, the “decision” to move was not the cause of the movement. As Thomas Huxley put it, “Consciousness would appear to be simply a by-product of the body’s working, completely without power to modify that working, just as a steam whistle that accompanies the working of a locomotive is without influence upon its machinery.”

Pistos: Incredible. You are absolutely correct, Sophia. “Free will” is nothing but an illusion. We truly are mechanistic beings. We are no more capable of breaking the laws of nature than the proverbial apple falling on Newton’s head. Well, what about moral responsibility? Can any person be held accountable for their actions?

Sophia: Continuing in the same vein as earlier, I say this: behaviors that are considered immoral are usually so because they reduce the overall fitness of our species. If I start killing indiscriminately, other members of my species will realize that they are in danger, and they will therefore take actions to punish me and prevent me from continuing. Moral responsibility may be a myth, but moral accountability is not.

Pistos: Well done, Sophia. I am convinced. Determinism and morality have been reconciled, without appeal to free will or the supernatural.

Works Cited:

1 Theobald, D. 1999. 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Endogenous Retroviruses. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd...l#retroviruses
2 Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. 1977. Punctuated equilibria: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered.
3 Wilkins, J. 1997. Evolution and Philosophy: Is Evolution Science, and What Does 'Science' Mean? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html
4 Gould, S. J. 1981. The Mismeasure of Man. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. Paleobiology, 3, 115-151.
5 Pope John Paul II. 1996. Message to Pontifical Academy of Sciences.
6 Carter, R. 2002. Exploring Consciousness. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles .
7 Libet, B. 1985. Unconsciousness: Cerebral Initiative and the Role of Conscious Will in Voluntary Action. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 8, 529-66.

John Page

Jabber:

Nice, although I can't believe Pistos totally caves!

The Primate has indeed evolved....

Cheers, John