From Matt Palmer
In his discussion of free will, John Searle makes a classic error in attributing purpose to evolution (13 January, p 48). He argues that if we live in an entirely deterministic world, why would evolution have endowed us with expensive features such as big brains, since “all decisions are fixed by deterministic neuron processes”, and thus having the big brain “makes no difference”.
Complexity can evolve even in deterministic systems, as is proven by genetic programming techniques. If bigger brains make a difference to a particular life form’s ability to pass on its genes, then they can evolve. Even though the creature could not have made any other decisions than it did, it could make better decisions, using all the power of the complex network it possesses.
Evolution is blind, and cares not that this might produce the cruel illusion of free will for very complex organisms. In such a system, it only makes no absolute difference to a big-brained philosopher who sees the big picture.
From Eric Norton
Advertisement
John Searle maintains that the hypothesis that free will is an illusion “runs dead counter to evolution”, since without free will “conscious rational decision-making… plays no role in the survival of the organism” and therefore we could not have evolved our big brains.
But all animals respond to external stimuli in their environments, and big brains allow their possessors to assimilate more information about their environment and model it mentally in more sophisticated ways. This in turn allows them to respond more appropriately to their environment, which would certainly be an evolutionary advantage.
In any case, it’s not as if we don’t have the ability to choose, it’s just that with enough knowledge of us and the information we are working on, it would be possible to predict the choices we will make. That’s hardly revolutionary – our friends and loved ones have a pretty good chance of predicting how we’ll choose to take our tea, for example.
Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire, UK
From Peter Smith
John Searle says that without free will “the enormous time spent educating the young to make rational decisions makes no difference”. But the learning that I have experienced is surely among the causes of the actions that I take, even if those actions are not a matter of free will.
Even in a strictly deterministic view, I cannot take an action that is inconsistent with my state of knowledge of the world. In apparently making a free choice to look before crossing the road, I may in fact be blindly following a learned rule but, either way, without the relevant education I would be swiftly removed from the gene pool.
Leicester, UK
Richmond, Surrey, UK
