February 14, 2003
EVOLVED OR FREE?:
-REVIEW: of Freedom Evolves by Daniel C Dennett: Does human evolution move onwards and upwards towards liberty and progress? (John Gray, The Independent)If natural selection had been discovered in India, China or Japan, it is hard to imagine it making much of a stir. Darwin's discovery signalled a major advance in human knowledge, but its cultural impact came from the fact that it was made in a milieu permeated by the Judaeo-Christian belief in human uniqueness. If - along with hundreds of millions of Hindus and Buddhists - you have never believed that humans differ from everything else in the natural world in having an immortal soul, you will find it hard to get worked up by a theory that shows how much we have in common with other animals.Among us, in contrast, it has triggered savage and unending controversy. In the 19th century, the conflict was waged between Darwinists and Christians. Now, the controversy is played out between Darwinism and humanists, who seek to defend a revised version of Western ideas about the special nature of humans.
In Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett has produced the most powerful and ingenious attempt at reconciling Darwinism with the belief in human freedom to date. Writing with a verve that puts to shame the leaden prose that has become the trademark of academic philosophy, Dennett presents the definitive argument that the human mind is a product of evolution, not something that stands outside the natural world.
Making full use of his seminal writings on consciousness, he contends that we do not need to believe in free will to be able to think of ourselves as responsible moral beings. On the contrary, moral agency is a by-product of natural selection. In that sense, it is an accident; but once it has come about, we can "bootstrap ourselves" into freedom. The evolution of human culture enables us to be free as no other animal can be. "Human freedom," Dennett writes, "is not an illusion; it is an objective phenomenon, distinct from all other biological conditions and found in only one species, us."
The ringing tone of Dennett's declaration of human uniqueness provokes a certain suspicion regarding the scientific character of his argument. After all, the notion that humans are free in a way that other animals are not does not come from science. Its origins are in religion--above all, in Christianity.
This may be the rock upon which Darwinism finally falters, the too slow recognition that to accept it is to deny our own uniqueness and the very idea of free will.
MORE:
-REVIEW: of Freedom Evolves by Daniel C Dennett (Kenan Malik)
-ESSAY: Conscious objector: The ultra-modern view of consciousness turns science upside down (Colin Tudge, January 30, 2003, The Guardian)
Genetics: why Prince Charles is so wrong: Genes work just like computer software, says this writer - which is why the luddites don't get it, but their children probably will. (Richard Dawkins, January 28, 2003, Checkbiotech)
Since when did Darwin say anything about human behaviour?
Wasn't he writing about finches on some island?
He wrote about the Tierra Del Fuegans, among others.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at February 15, 2003 8:36 AMNotice that Dennett uses arguments. When has anyone ever demonstrated by a deductive argument that the real notion of free will is inconsistent with natural selection?
Posted by: Wrighty at February 15, 2003 9:05 AMWrighty:
If natural selection is a natural process capable of rendering the current forms of every living thing in the universe, how can you square that with the notion that Man, uniquely, is free to select for himself? Isn't that like saying Man can by pure force of mind overcome gravity and levitate? or step outside of time?
Let me put the question this way. If deterministic Newtonian mechanics holds locally, here on earth, does that mean we are all just a collection of particles who are knocked about by forces external to us? How does that square with our views of our own freedom? We aren't just a bunch of particles, just as we aren't just a collection of genes, that only follows if we accept some form of scientific reductionism. And reductionism is not a scientific thesis, it is a philosophical thesis, and one that is not implied by either physics or evolutionary theory.
Posted by: Wrighty at February 15, 2003 10:16 AMWrighty:
Of course it's implied, though I think you're right to deride it.
The ToE did not cause a stir among Hindus and Buddhists because their revealed truths had nothing to say about how humans (or other life forms) came to be. The ToE directly challenged a Christian revealed truth, hence the conflict. (See also, Galileo, Copernicus v. Catholic Church)
"... the notion that humans are free in a way that other animals are not does not come from science. Its origins are in religion--above all, in Christianity.
To the extent that Christianity, unlike Islam, rejects predestination, true enough. However, I would have thought simple observation alone would suffice to reach that conclusion.
Finally, I don't see how the ToE denies our uniqueness, because the ToE is about process, not uniqueness. Similarly, the ToE has nothing to say about free will.
Respectfully,
Jeff Guinn
Never mind how it came to be, clearly the human mind can comprehend futurity, contingency, costs and benefits, and that none of these things are deterministic. Maybe it is due to my intellectual limitations, but I am unable to conceive of how individual human minds can function within those contraints in the absence of free will.
Jeff:
At what point did Man acquire the Free Will that allows him to step outside of this natural process? Is it with the rise of homo sapiens, over 100,000 years ago? If so, in what sense is modern man a product of evolution anymore after umpteen generations of human choice rather than natural selection?