Can anyone predict the next mutation? And how this mutation will play out?

evolution is not, nor could be, a random process — Kenosha Kid

It is evidently a random process.

Determinism is a needless hypothesis. It's not proven, and merges on the metaphysical. It also leads to logical contradictions. Hold on to it at your own risk.

All the evidence we have so far, from classic physics to just plain experience, is that this resolves somehow to almost complete determinism at human scales. — Isaac

I don't think so. Complex systems -- eg living organisms -- are not fully deterministic. Biology is not fully deterministic in its outlook. It doesn't claim that life is fully determined by chemistry.

Also, the world is one. Your brain is made of quanta. Everytime you see fluorescence, you see a quantic phenomenon. Evolution works through mutations which are mostly due to radioactivity, a quantic phenomenon. Hence mutations can't be predicted. Hence evolution can't be predicted. Etc etc.

Scientific theories suggest the some quantum scale events might possibly be not determined and you take that as reason to presume every pairing of cause and effect in the world is indeterminate unless proven otherwise? — Isaac

Just saying: the scientific evidence so far points to indeterminism.

What's your evidence that the present state of affairs in the universe - our discussion here included -- was fully predetermined as early as a split-second after the Big Bang?

I see it differently. Modern science tells us that not every single event can be predicted, and that kinda points to the indeterminist world view. In this context, determinism bears the burden of proof. And determinism is a very hard claim to make and defend based on facts or logic.

Yes.

I mean: by science.

Science, anyone?

Not fully determined, no. Indeterminism doesn't deny some causation and determination. It just says that "not everything is predetermined".

Then it would depend where the ball goes, what's its trajectory compared to other stuff out there. Like it could get stuck in a tree branch or something... :-)

Yes, you ought to, if you can send the ball faster than 11km per second.

So if I throw a ball in the air I should act as if it may or may not come back down again? — Isaac

You're welcome to, especially if you manage to exceed escape velocity.

Another thing you could do is read about indeterminism. :-)

I'm a non-native English speaker too.

Is there a big cost (monetary or timewise) to taking the formal course? What's stopping you? Why do you hesitate taking it?

what i am asking here is, should i study philosophy at school. or just learn from my self as a hooby — ramo

The answer depends on how good the teacher would be. I remember of a prof who made me love mathematics. I was already good at it by then but his passion brought me to the next level. But then, other teachers can make you hate mathematics, or philosophy.

So you may wish to get a sense of how good this particular philosophy course and teacher are, and whether the topics addressed talk to your own questions and interests.

If the course is going to wonder about hypothetical bald French kings, or about whether, when Suzy thinks something, there is something Suzy thinks or not... my advice is to skip it, unless you find word games fascinating.

If the course is going to give you a broad overview of philosophical problems and traditions, it can be worth it as an orientation for further reading.

And if the teacher has a bit of passion for her discipline, it could be a real treat.

If your talk is fully determined by your molecules, then I'm now reading from and talking to your molecules.

Nice to meet you, girls!

While I agree with the evolutionary advantages of cephalization for ambulatory organisms, there is no reason to think that the evolutionary advantages lead to anything but superior data processing and response to the environment -- no reason to think that it leads to subjective awareness, and no reason to think it leads to free will/choice. — Dfpolis

A 'superior data processing and response' system must include self-reference. A predator for instance needs to know where he himself is compared to his pray, what's their relative speed, etc. This requires a mental 3D map, the modelisation of movements within that 3D map, and therefore I think some sense of self vs the rest of the world.

Note that some animals are commonly thought to have a strong sense of self-preservation. They fight, they flee, they hide. Self preservation requires a sense of self.

What I am asking is: who is talking though your mouth? Neurons? Molecules? Atoms? Particles? Society? Culture? Ancestors? God?

I'd like to know whom I am talking too.

So the agent’s act of choosing is either caused by something that’s caused by something that’s causes by something ad infinitum, or it happens randomly. — Pfhorrest

So what you are saying right now is not really what you are saying? Who is talking when you talk?

On this, I think a person could argue a bumblebee has the capability of free will. — tim wood

IDK, I'm missing the social dimension and the sense of individual decision making. Bumblebees don't punish or reward others. The rules they follow seem genetically coded rather than socially decided. The queen is the queen forever. Insects also seem to lack the flee or fight mechanism, a fundamental decision making mechanism among vertebrates. I'm not convinced bumblebees are free. Theirs seems a very static system in which degrees of freedom are miniscule.

Isn't there a set of European values emerging as well, around social and environmental responsibility, a rejection of profit as the only goal, the use of diplomacy rather than war, the rejection of parochialism and a defense of human rights?

You could interpret Brexit as a failure of the Brits to reassess their nationalistic historiography, a failure to realise that their British identity was made up, created politically, and that it is to a degree based on fake nationalistic history and xenophobia.

And yet there is error. — Pantagruel

Error is how we learn. It is unavoidable and productive. But I can't see how a systemic illusion about the whole shebang would be necessary or useful.

Fair enough.

Bumblebee

A bumblebee (or bumble bee, bumble-bee, or humble-bee) is any of over 250 species in the genus Bombus, part of Apidae [...] Most bumblebees are social insects that form colonies with a single queen. The colonies are smaller than those of honey bees, growing to as few as 50 individuals in a nest.

Free will

Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.

Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen. [...] Traditionally, only actions that are freely willed are seen as deserving credit or blame. Whether free will exists, what it is and the implications of whether it exists or not are some of the longest running debates of philosophy and religion.

(from wiki)

An interesting question though, is whether bumblebees have free will.

'Free will' overstates the case in my view. I prefer 'free choice'. But it's a bit of a detail.

The path from evolution to free will goes through cephalization, one of few long term tendencies in evolution. Cephalization is literally "the formation of the head". You will note that most animals have some sort of head. But not all. The species that appeared the earliest exhibit no head. Eg jelly fish. But flat worms and annelides (earth worms) have a sort of proto-head, where about 20% of the nervous system is concentrated, together with a mouth and primitive eyes.

This tendency to concentrate neurons and senses in the front of the animal goes on, eon after eon, because it provides a darwinian advantage, when you can move, to be able to look in the direction toward which you're moving. And concentrating neural power must makes some sense as well.

And at the end of this evolution, there's some 'pilot in the plane' that gets generated, some navigating system for the animal, that allows full integration of sense data, memory, analysis, etc, within the same space to make for better piloting.

The story of the Kalmar Union and comparing it to the United Kingdom tells a lot. ...

And looking at the history of the British Isles, you can see just how much effort have to be made to create a common new identity and how really people take these things into heart. — ssu

The Kalmar Union is interesting, thanks. (You might wish to check the history of the Delian league for another example).

The Brits did well except in Ireland. Northern Ireland is still fucked up and with Brexit it's going to worsen.

Of course, European nationalism in the 19th century erased prior identities through schooling, national languages and nationalist historiographies. The process is still not complete in Italy.

What's interesting with those who identify with their empire, is the pride it gives them. You can see some of that in the nostalgia for the USSR, the joy they had of being part of something big and powerful. They say things like "you could travel for days and the countryside would change and the people too but you would still be at home, using one currency". Not that they all liked the Soviet Union when it was still a thing but they liked that in it: the huge size, the sense of a community of nations united in a powerful league.

The Americans get this feeling.

We seem to be agreeing. — Dfpolis

On this issue yes. I believe in evolution though. That's in fact precisely why I believe in what they call 'free will'.

Yes, I wasn't being precise, that's correct. But if the whole point is, even if it is just the "idea of freedom", even if that is just an illusion, is it a "free illusion"? i.e. there is still a freedom there. — Pantagruel

I can’t see what would be the advantage of such an illusion. There’s no point. Nature doesn’t need to lie to us.

Indeterminism?

People Who Doubt

I like people who doubt
Who listen a bit too much
To their swaying heart

I like people who speak
And contradict themselves
Without self-betrayal

I like people who tremble
So that sometimes it seems
They are not able to judge

I like people who walk
Half inside their shoes
And half outside of them

I love their little song
Even though they pass for chumps

I like those who panic
Those who aren't logical
Well, not as they should

Those who, when yanking their chains
Not to bother us
Make them ring like bells

Those who will not be ashamed
To end up being nothing
But failures of the heart

For not being able
To say: "Save us the worst
And just give us the best"

I love their little song
Even though they pass for chumps

I like people who dare not
Take ownership of things
Even less of people

Those who aspire to be
But a mere window
For the eyes of children

Those without a banner
Colorblind of the soul
Ignoring the factions

Those who are stupid enough
That history will not
Gives them any credit

I love their little song
Even though they pass for chumps

I like people who doubt
But would like us to leave them
Alone from time to time

That we don't bother them
When they go for a walk
In their autumns and springs

To be told that the soul
Makes more beautiful flames
Than all those sad asses

And that we thank them
That we cry and shout to them
"Thank you for having lived!"

Thank you for the tenderness
And too bad for your asses
Who did what they could...

- Anne Sylvestre

Did someone tried injecting him clorox? Could well save his life.

Also please quadruple dose of hydroxychloroquine.

Rather, we'd work out what it is we still mean by 'responsible' despite determinism. — Isaac

We can also get rid of determinism.

I am not a compatibilist in the standard sense. — Dfpolis

I never said you were a standard one but you are one. I don't believe that determinism makes any sense, so I define myself as a nondeterminist compatibilist. That too is unorthodox.

Man! Just now discovering this thread. Jovanotti!!!!!! Live!!!!

Much great stuff here.

wow thanks. The song is gorgeous of course but the Animal Farm animation is a gem.

Right. "True randomness" is hard to emulate, including in computers. But my point is not that we need a truly unpredictable random number generator inside our brain to live. It is more that we need an alternative to knowledge-based decision making in case it is inapplicable or inconclusive. I believe a seemingly random process will do. I'm open to alternative ideas too.

You point out to another such pragmatic case where selection of options via preference comparison is unwise: when wanting to be unpredictable by others.

Isaac's thesis is typical of medieval thinking, in that it uses a mechanistic metaphor to try and understand our minds. It's a bit late for that. Nowadays there are better metaphors available, eg in cybernetics, system theory etc. Those metaphors are much more complex and life-like.

causality and free will are compatible — Dfpolis

So you are a compatibilist... Welcome to the club!

That's not good enough for what I'm getting at. — creativesoul

Probably not, but it suffices to explain how malapropisms can exist, be decoded, and sometimes get to endure. They are mutations of language.

that it's able to evolve as it does. — creativesoul

At the core of every system capable of evolving, one can usually find the three darwinian faculties to 1) err, though rarely; 2) weed out most errors when they appear; and 3) select some errors and turn them into useful novelty.

All systems must control errors, but the best systems use errors to evolve. Successful mutants, like malapropisms and neologisms, can become niche sub-species.

Simply put, it seems clear to me that the notions of 'prior' and 'passing' theory are the result of not quite having a good enough grasp upon what language is, and how it works. — creativesoul

The way I see it, it's a work in progress, annotations and remarks and caveats and entirely new entries get added from time to time, when we note a particular way of speaking ("Alfred keeps saying "obviously" all the time, that could mean something... but what?"), or when we understand a malapropism ("that lady is mixing up complicated words"), or catch a speech impairment ("he can't say "ask", that's why he's always "axing"), or when we learn a new word. It's a long list of "notes to self about language".