The existence of God, the nature of freewill – we just seem to keep running into some of the same BIG questions that have orbited around Western philosophy for centuries. I thought it might be a good moment to step back again and consider the best way forward.
Carl in a comment on my post called Cosmic Evolution evoked the use of Ockham’s Razor to explain why he believed that we shouldn’t add any teleology to the picture of evolution. William of Ockham was a monk in the Middle Ages who is credited with the notion that we should always prefer explanations that have the least number of assumptions. The notion of Ockham’s Razor has been used in science and is certainly a good principle to follow. At the same time it isn’t always the case.
The way that Ockham’s Razor is used in relation to evolution is by saying that chance variations that occur in individuals and the natural selection that occurs through survival advantages can account for the movement of evolution. Since those principles are enough to explain evolution, we shouldn’t add any type of purpose or direction to the explanation. This is certainly a worthy application of Ockham’s Razor, but it doesn’t prove that there is no deeper directionality also at work in evolution.
Our understanding of evolution isn’t at a point where we could either disprove or prove the existence of a directional force in the universe’s evolution. The best counter argument to the above comes from the so-called Anthropic Principle. If we assume that there is nothing but chance variation and survival to account for evolution then we are saying that the universe as we see it has come about randomly.
The Anthropic Principle states that the conditions of the universe necessary for a life form like ours to have evolved are so exact and so complex that the odds of this universe having evolved are virtually infinity to one against. With odds such as that it seems impossible to rule out at least the possibility of some guiding principle at work in tandem with chance variation and natural selection. The Anthropic Principle certainly doesn’t prove the existence of such purpose – as some of its more religious minded adherents would like to think – but at least in my mind it does leave open the possibility.
Similarly on the individual level as Carl has also pointed out Behaviorism can explain the development of human behavior on the basis of reinforcement and conditioning. Again as powerful an explanation as this is, it isn’t proof that there is nothing else at work.
What I find interesting is why do we as individuals choose to tend to lean toward one side or the other in these debates. William James believed that in the end it was a matter of temperament. He claimed that any person tends to be either hard-minded or tender-minded. The hard-minded find solace in facts and determined causes. The tender-minded find solace in more mystical notions of purpose and intent. In the end James believed that how we saw things had more to do with our character than any objective account of reality.
I believe there is something to this, but I would add a related notion which has to do with the purposes we are invested in. If our purposes are more scientific (and I mean this in a very broad sense) then we are motivated to try to find the objective truth. That is the truth that most accurately and unbiased reflects observable facts. If our purposes are more philosophical (again in a very broad sense), I believe that we are (or should be) motivated to create a picture of reality that creates the optimal navigation system for human development at all levels. I suppose that already shows my bias, but I think it is something worth considering. Are the aims of philosophy and science the same or different?
Carl also said in his comment that he felt that we can build a morality based on humanistic values. I am not so sure about that. I think that ultimately our moral sense is directly related to our most fundamental conception of the nature of reality. That is why I believe that the reality of evolution provides a potential platform upon which to rethink our moral basis. The Western World has moved largely outside of the influence of the great religious traditions and so far a humanistic morality has not emerged that seems compelling enough to guide us. Maybe evolution will be the basis for a new morality.
I had a thought the other day that I wanted to use my next few blog posts to run through a thought experiment trying to experience the development of the Western Mind from the fall of Rome to modern times. Could be interesting…
Brian
/ November 1, 2009The Anthropic Principle doesn’t belong in a discussion among avid evolitionaries except as an example of wrong thinking to be quickly dismissed. It confuses cause and effect. Life is tuned to survive in the universe as it is, not visa versa. For a complete discussion, see ‘Climbing Mount Improbable’ by Richard Dawkins.
Also, I put philosophers and scientists in the same truth-seeking camp. If there is another camp to which you belong, Jeff, it might be loosely called Emotivators: romantics, artists, preachers, spiritual gurus, etc. And we need those too, provided we stay within respectable levels of truthiness!
Jeff Carreira
/ November 1, 2009Brian I like your term Emotivator.
I also agree that if you use the argument of the Anthropic Principle as proof of intelligent design that is faulty logic. At the same time the unlikelihood of reality as we know it coming into being by chance certainly makes the idea of teleology tempting.
Imagine two men on a hiking trip when, just as it starts to look stormy, they find a pile of wooden boards, a can full of nails and some hammers. They quickly build a lean-to shelter and later while sitting dry in the rain one says, “Wow, it was really lucky to find the wood and nails for this shelter.” The other one counters with, “That wasn’t luck, someone obviously left them for us to build this shelter, and I can prove it because if they exactly the materials we needed to build a lean-to.”
The faulty logic in the second man’s argument is obvious. Having exactly the materials needed for a lean-to doesn’t prove anything. The two men built a lean-to because of the materials they found, if they had found different materials they would have built something else. This is the confusion that can occur with the Anthropic Principle.
Still, the two men can argue all night long and neither will ever be able to prove his point. The first man can never prove that it was only luck that led them to the wood and nails and the second can never prove that they were aided by some benevolent force. If later they were to find out that those materials just happened to fall off of a truck in that spot the second man would have to concede that they were in fact lucky. If on the other hand they were to find out that park Rangers leave piles just like that all over the forest so that hikers can make shelters with them the first man would have to concede that there was more than luck at play.
My point is that the unlikelihood of finding just what you need for a lean-to, or just the right conditions in the universe for life, doesn’t prove anything, but it certainly makes you wonder.
I will make every effort to stay within acceptable bounds of truthiness.
Melissa
/ November 18, 2009I am yet still learning the basics about philosophy and science or more specifically, conscious evolution. I first learned about this from author Lynne McTaggart’s book, “The Intention Experiment.” She performs science based intention experiments on her site. http://www.theintentionexperiment.com/participate
Chuck R
/ April 8, 2010Believe in a “direction” to evolution can satisfy certain emotional-intellectual yearnings for a “meaning of life” which is external to whatever meaning we create for our own life, by our own actions.
I don’t know how such a direction can ever be “disproven”. There is no certainty in science based on inductive reasoning, only a wide range of probabilities. Perhaps it better to stick to what is highly probable rather than entertain every possibility, no matter how remote or unfalsifiable? Otherwise, we find ourselves saying, “Well, yes, it’s POSSIBLE that flying saucers are operated by Green Cheesemen from the far side of the moon, I can’t disprove that, so I guess we’ll have to include that as something to take into account.” There’s no end to that fruitless direction.
Belief in an Anthropic Principle does support the “Multi-verse” concept of an infinite number of universes, each with its own fundamental laws of physics. Self-conscious life would of course be able to arise only in a universe which has a set of physical laws which permits lifeforms to arise and develop. Thus our universe looks suitable to support lifeforms such as us, because it has to be so structured or we wouldn’t be here to muse on the subject.
Of course, it’s been pointed out that the vast majority of the universe is most definitely not suitable habitat for the appearance of lifeforms. So far as we know, it’s just our little planet.
At our current stage of psychophysical development and knowledge, we cannot understand how we could arise without either some sort of anthropic principle or some sort of creative deity bringing it about. (Yes, there are a couple more conjectures bouncing around, I admit.)
I think we’re simply operating on too little information. It’s human nature to guess about what we don’t yet know. But just as Europeans couldn’t guess what might lie in the New World until they actually got there, we can’t know until we do a bit more exploring.
So whatever paradigm we develop based on too little information and too much speculation, we’d better not get too attached to it. (This is one reason why “non-attachment” is promoted in Indian religions)
Frank Luke
/ May 31, 2010Hi Jeff, re: “My point is that the unlikelihood of finding just what you need for a lean-to, or just the right conditions in the universe for life, doesn’t prove anything, but it certainly makes you wonder.”
You’re not forgetting that necessity is the mother of invention, are you? In the case of evolutionary adaptation, it seems even Mother Nature observes that dictum and physical modifications are made according to the needs of creatures. In human development, it seems the modifications are being made in psychic and mental dimensions, IMO.
Frank Luke
/ June 30, 2010Hi Jeff:
Thinking about the statement you made that “My point is that the unlikelihood of finding just what you need for a lean-to, or just the right conditions in the universe for life, doesn’t prove anything, but it certainly makes you wonder.”
The anthropic principle would seem to talk about how humans being intelligent can figure out solutions to challenges, not that the materials were set there that ensued building the shelter but that the materials were seen to offer the solution of making life more amenable. The more solutions offer better conditions for human existence the more we laud them. Necessity being the mom of invention.
Frank Luke
/ June 30, 2010Additional thought to the above:
In the case of evolution’s modifications to species, the modifications are usually attributed to adaptations for the species being able to survive not only conveniently but sometimes even continuing to exist.
In human terms, I believe our observable physical modifications have ended, more or less, except if we can say that our consciousness and brains are undergoing a lot of transforming thanks to the electronic developments and adoption of them somewhat universally. This is where evolution is occurring, IMO. Agree?
Jeff Carreira
/ July 1, 2010I would generally agree that it seems that our physical modifications have ended. I would want to footnote though that more physical modifications could still come – and if the environment were to change dramatically that might bring on a round of physical adaptations.
I really appreciated something I heard recently that said that the idea of survival of the “fittest” was a statement in reference to the strength or fortitude of a species – it was a statement about how well that species fit with the environment they were in. Adaptation would occur until the fit between environment and physical form was perfect. So the word fittest in this case isn’t “fit” as in “trim and fit”, it is “fit” as in “fit as a glove”.
Frank Luke
/ August 8, 2010More re: evolution and survival
I believe our outward evolutionary modifications will be less obvious but that human transformation is inner, psychically and psychologically, where evolution is taking place. Tech and science are important factors in this modification. Of course if our ecology undergoes drastic change, we will hopefully adapt or fall by the wayside.
I see that developing higher consciousness and attaining the spiritual realization that peace rather than the warrior mindset that leads to settling differences is going to obviously be crucial in human development.
If we fail to evolve in this way, we will go the way of the dinosaur. Maybe in an apocalyptic cataclysm or with a long, drawn-out, unpleasant planetary decline and living conditions on earth.