# Would you give up free will for world peace? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2023, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800 "2023-09-28T01:17:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/161 "2023-10-02T19:07:32Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > So evolution has no habdle to differentiate between feathers and fur? > > If both fulfill the same function in the same manner, then yes, obviously. What you’re missing though is that evolution doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Even if down and fur are completely identical in all properties that affect survival, a kiwi won’t grow fur and a mouse won’t grow feathers, because evolution must work with what is there. We could come up with an infinite number of possible mental configurations that would allow a mind to accomplish everything a human mind does without the illusion of free will. If you magically created a population of human-like creatures that use one of those other methods, they might survive with no problem and evolution couldn’t differentiate between them and us. But there is no reason to believe that those other possible mental states could actually arise through evolution from the mental model possessed by the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, and much reason to suspect that those models are in fact so different from ours that they could never have arisen any more than our hair could have been replaced with down. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/162 "2023-10-02T19:10:35Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Because if you don’t, your whole argument falls apart. Ok, at least argue for a statement like this. I believe that, all things being equal, something that doesn’t make a difference in function/behavior doesn’t make a difference in reproductive fitness. That’s all that’s needed for my argument (and trivially true regarding natural selection). ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/163 "2023-10-02T19:13:59Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > But there is no reason to believe that those other possible mental states could actually arise through evolution from the mental model possessed by the last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees Again, that’s not an argument, that’s a vague hope. Maybe things were locked in at some point in the past that the only evolutionary trajectory was such as to leave us with an illusion of free will. I mean, yeah, maybe. I wouldn’t even know how to assess the plausibility of something this vague; and certainly it doesn’t support any argument that we ended up with an illusion of free will for evolutionary reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/164 "2023-10-02T19:32:33Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Again, that’s not an argument, that’s a vague hope. Maybe things were locked in at some point in the past that the only evolutionary trajectory was such as to leave us with an illusion of free will. That’s not the argument at all. Right now we have an illusion of free will, of a subjective experience. This subjective experience impacts the way we behave, in that our emotional state is impacted by this subjective belief and our emotional state impacts the decisions we make. Therefore our subjective experience is subject to evolutionary forces. One could imagine a human that behaves identically to us despite having no illusion of free will or subjective experience. Just like one could imagine feathery, downy integument that’s indistinguishable from fur. But what I _cannot_ imagine is such feathers appearing in a mammal lineage. That’s what you are proposing. But while I see the method by which intelligent-ape-humans could evolve, I cannot see the method by which ChatGPT-apes or soul-apes or any other form of _non-sentient-but-behaving-identically-to-humans_-apes could evolve. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/165 "2023-10-02T19:36:16Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > But what I _cannot_ imagine is such feathers appearing in a mammal lineage. That’s what you are proposing. But while I see the method by which intelligent-ape-humans could evolve, I cannot see the method by which ChatGPT-apes or soul-apes or any other form of _non-sentient-but-behaving-identically-to-humans_-apes could evolve. Then I defer to your superior powers of imagination, because I don’t have any clear enough image of how our subjective impressions evolved that would allow me to judge whether we should end up with an illusion of free will one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/166 "2023-10-02T19:45:46Z")
@Half_Man_Half_Wit your reasoning fairly obviously leads to some spectacularly wrong conclusions. I’m really struggling to understand why you cannot see the gaping holes in your reasoning, but I think I discern two principal problems. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Evolution acts on behaviors. It simply doesn’t care how they’re produced. It can’t! So it’s from the outset simply fallacious to claim that the illusion of free will is adaptive: **that’s just not where selection occurs**. [my bold] Evolution (including evolution by natural selection) is technically a change in allele frequencies in a population. In other words _a change in DNA_. Sure, you are correct that it is phenotype (behavior, function, trait) that leads to a difference in fitness (survival, reproduction). But there must be a complete causal chain from genotype to phenotype (from DNA to e.g. behavior) in order for natural selection to operate. You cannot arbitrarily cut off this causal chain at some point and call everything downstream of it the phenotype (behavior or function), and then claim that natural selection does not act on anything upstream. The operation of natural selection requires the _entire_ causal chain from DNA to function/behavior. DNA contains the blueprint for our brains. A subjective mental state is a neuron configuration in our brains. Our brains obviously cause our behavior. It’s obviously perfectly _plausible_ that subjective mental states modulate behavior. It would be surprising if they didn’t. You can’t arbitrarily cut of the causal chain between DNA and behavior somewhere downstream of the brain and say “natural selection only operates downstream of here”. (I’ll make a separate post in a few minutes on the other problem with your concept of how evolution works). ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/167 "2023-10-02T19:49:43Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Then I defer to your superior powers of imagination, because I don’t have any clear enough image of how our subjective impressions evolved that would allow me to judge whether we should end up with an illusion of free will one way or the other. For one, I think it predates _Homo_ or even _Hominidae_, at least in a rudimentary form. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/168 "2023-10-02T20:02:06Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > But there must be a complete causal chain from genotype to phenotype (from DNA to e.g. behavior) in order for natural selection to operate Sure, but where this chain is not unique, to say that a _specific_ genotype (in the extreme) is determined by a phenotype that’s selected for is, simply, fallacious. > [@Riemann](#): > > The operation of natural selection requires the _entire_ causal chain from DNA to function/behavior. No, the causal chain is irrelevant. It’s the phenotype that’s selected for, independent of how that phenotype comes about. That is _why_ evolution acts on phenotype rather than genotype. > [@Riemann](#): > > You can’t arbitrarily cut of the causal chain between DNA and behavior somewhere downstream of the brain and say “natural selection only operates downstream of here”. Sure I can. Whatever changes don’t affect the phenotype are not subject to selective pressure. > [@Babale](#): > > For one, I think it predates _Homo_ or even _Hominidae_, at least in a rudimentary form. That’s nice. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/169 "2023-10-02T20:12:56Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Sure I can. Whatever changes don’t affect the phenotype are not subject to selective pressure. Changes to the internal state _do_ affect the phenotype. The fact that a completely separate internal state could generate the same phenotype does not mean that a creature using strategy A can have its descendents switch to strategy B with nothing in between. You are looking at the kiwi’s down and declaring that it is impossible to know if it evolved from feathers or from fur. It is patently absurd, no matter how dismissively you wave off those who point out the absurdity. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/170 "2023-10-02T20:13:21Z")
As for your second misconception in the way evolution works - you’ve repeated some variation on this several times, but this version might be the easiest to dissect: > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > But the argument only works if there isn’t really any other way to fulfill the adaptive function (e.g. keeping warm). It’s like saying, in order to keep warm, you need fur—which is just dismissed by pointing out an organism that keeps warm without fur. > > Suppose the different possible solutions for a given evolutionary problem are laid out on a dart board. You throw the dart, and it hits a given spot—say, having fur, or the illusion of free will. It’s then not due to selection that the dart landed in that particular spot; evolution just set up the solution space, but can’t be appealed to for the selection of any one particular solution. But that’s what the argument that we have the illusion of free will because it’s adaptive tries to do. The fundamental problem here is that you seem to be under the impression that “adaptive” is synonymous with “necessary”. But this cannot just be semantics, it betrays a fundamental misconception of how evolution works. I would be hard pressed to think of _any_ adaptation that I could claim is absolutely necessary. Evolution cannot exhaustively search the entire space of possible phenotypes, the entire space of internal mechanisms that could theoretically implement the exact same behavior. The entire space of theoretical possibilities is _not_ laid out on a dartboard, with an equal chance of hitting any theoretical possibility. Evolution can only work with the variation that is actually available, the mutations that happen to actually arise. When an adaptive trait arises, the word “adaptive” simply means “with a **relative** fitness advantage over what came before”, not “the best and only possible solution”. If there are several equally high fitness “peaks” which use different mechanisms to implement the same beneficial behavior, the one that is reached may be a matter of chance. But reaching it is still a process of natural selection and adaptation. You must also consider the fact that some fitness optima may not be accessible - “you cannot get there from here”. A phenotype that cannot evolve by incremental steps without crossing a fitness “trough” may not be found, even if it is a better solution. But, again, that does not imply that the mediocre solution that evolution _does_ reach is not adaptive. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/171 "2023-10-02T20:15:11Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > If there are several equally high fitness “peaks” which use different mechanisms to implement the same beneficial behavior, the one that is reached may be a matter of chance. But reaching it is still a process of natural selection and adaptation. You must also consider the fact that some fitness optima may not be accessible - “you cannot get there from here”. A phenotype that cannot evolve by incremental steps without crossing a fitness “trough” may not be found, even if it is a better solution. But, again, that does not imply that the mediocre solutions that evolution _does_ reach is not adaptive Right. This is why dinosaurs modified their scales into feathers rather than evolving fur. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/172 "2023-10-02T20:16:52Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > No, the causal chain is irrelevant. It’s the phenotype that’s selected for, independent of how that phenotype comes about. That is _why_ evolution acts on phenotype rather than genotype. You are wrong. Evolution requires **heritable** variation. All evolution is **change in DNA**. Unless there is a complete causal chain between genotype and phenotype, there is no evolution by natural selection. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Whatever changes don’t affect the phenotype are not subject to selective pressure. Sure. So the only way your “reasoning” worked was by _assuming your conclusion_ that subjective mental state does not affect behavioral phenotype. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/173 "2023-10-02T20:19:11Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Changes to the internal state _do_ affect the phenotype. Not in general, no. If an animal is mating with a highly desirable mate, and loving every second of it, versus hating it all the way true (or more to the point, feeling compelled to do so despite its own wants), evolution won’t care. > [@Babale](#): > > The fact that a completely separate internal state could generate the same phenotype does not mean that a creature using strategy A can have its descendents switch to strategy B with nothing in between. And that’s not something I’ve said anywhere. > [@Babale](#): > > You are looking at the kiwi’s down and declaring that it is impossible to know if it evolved from feathers or from fur. No. I’m saying it’s a fallacious argument to say it has down because it needs to preserve body heat. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/174 "2023-10-02T20:20:21Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > The fundamental problem here is that you seem to be under the impression that “adaptive” is synonymous with “necessary”. No. The argument needs for there to be a necessary connection, as otherwise it’s just a blatant affirmation of the consequent. Nothing to do with evolution at all. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/175 "2023-10-02T20:26:47Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > You are wrong. All evolution is **change in DNA**. Unless there is a complete causal chain between genotype and phenotype, there is no evolution by natural selection. [Natural selection acts on phenotype, not genotype](https://study.com/academy/lesson/why-natural-selection-acts-on-phenotype-not-genotype.html). The genotype determines the phenotype, but _the phenotype doesn’t determine the genotype_. Different genotypes can lead to the same phenotype, and consequently, natural selection can’t distinguish between them ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/176 "2023-10-02T20:27:30Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > Changes to the internal state _do_ affect the phenotype. > > Not in general, no. If an animal is mating with a highly desirable mate, and loving every second of it, versus hating it all the way true (or more to the point, feeling compelled to do so despite its own wants), evolution won’t care. An animal that enjoys mating is more likely to mate than an animal that dislikes mating. An animal that feels like it is being piloted by an external will would not change its behavior. But whereas a mechanism for the illusion of free will exists, a mechanism for a cresture that has a subjective experience but no free will does not. The subjective experience helps the animal make decisions that bring it pleasure and avoid pain, and it is programmed to find things that help it reproduce pleasurable and things that do not help it reproduce unpleasurable. A subjective experience without the illusion of free will is not useful in that same way, so it isn’t going to evolve. > [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > No. I’m saying it’s a fallacious argument to say it has down because it needs to preserve body heat. A kiwi has down to preserve body heat. The fact that fur would also do the job is irrelevant, because it would take many intermediate steps of decreasing fitness for a proto-kiwi to lose its feathers and then grow fur. Meanwhile, a proto-kiwi can easily modify its feathers into down. It is true that “a kiwi has down because it needs to keep warm” is incomplete, in the sense that “a kiwi has down because it needs to keep warm _and it cannot evolve fur without first decreasing fitness_” is a more complete statement. But neither statement is _untrue_. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/177 "2023-10-02T20:28:08Z")
> [@Riemann](#): > > So the only way your “reasoning” worked was by _assuming your conclusion_ that subjective mental state does not affect behavioral phenotype. Again, I gave examples for how the subjective mental state may differ while leading to the same behavior, so this is just a blatant and somewhat desperate misrepresentation. ---
**Author:** ![Riemann](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/riemann/32/3133_2.png) [@Riemann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Riemann)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/178 "2023-10-02T20:28:24Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > The argument needs for there to be a necessary connection, as otherwise it’s just a blatant affirmation of the consequent. You are just repeating the same fallacy over and over again. No _neccessary_ connection is required, just _sufficiency_. If the ancestral state is “no temperature regulation” and fur happens to arise by mutation, and fur is _sufficient_ for temperature regulation, natural selection will operate to favor the adaptation “fur”. Of course fur is not _necessary_ to keep warm (other species evolved feathers, or make blankets), but it’s still adaptive where it occurs. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/179 "2023-10-02T20:29:07Z")
> [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](#): > > Again, I gave examples for how the subjective mental state may differ while leading to the same behavior, so this is just a blatant and somewhat desperate misrepresentation Your examples are theoretically possible in animals that _poof_ into existence fully formed, like a furry kiwi or a downy mouse. They do not make sense in context of the tree of life. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2023, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800/180 "2023-10-02T20:32:56Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > An animal that enjoys mating is more likely to mate than an animal that dislikes mating. Not if it feels an irresistible compulsion to mate despite its dislike, as stipulated. > [@Babale](#): > > But whereas a mechanism for the illusion of free will exists, a mechanism for a cresture that has a subjective experience but no free will does not. And yet, there are people who experience a certain set of their actions as not being due to their control, as in alien hand syndrome or various compulsive disorders. > [@Babale](#): > > The fact that fur would also do the job is irrelevant, because it would take many intermediate steps of decreasing fitness for a proto-kiwi to lose its feathers and then grow fur. Maybe, but again, I don’t know these things well enough to engage in such speculations. What I do know is that it isn’t relevant to the argument, which simply stipulates that because the illusion of free will is conducive to adaptive behavior, we have that illusion, which is simply affirming the consequent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-you-give-up-free-will-for-world-peace/990800.md?page=10)