The EVP Newsletter

by Donald Cameron

Edition 2a – Autumn 2003

If you would like to receive future issues, please email dcameron1@btopenworld.com with a “yes”. The subject matter will continue to be at the interface between science and philosophy: the next two issues are expected to contain (a) discussion points raised by correspondents and (b) the philosophical implications of information theory and thermodynamics.

The purpose of these newsletters is to report on the debate on the EVP and related topics, and invite comment. When an engineer points out that the philosophy of ethics can have an elegant analytic solution attended by a rigorous proof, he must expect opposition, even disdain. (See www.woodhillpublishing.co.uk for a summary of the EVP.) In the event, I have enjoyed discussion with a number of courteous and intelligent commentators, a majority of whom have felt opposed to the EVP, but none of whom have been able to fault its proof. Yet, if the EVP were correct, it would seem to be too useful to ignore. That is why I must (with apologies) continue to trouble people with the subject until that refutation is achieved!

I am reminded of the words of Kent van Cleave: “I hope you'll do your best to challenge my views and grind them into the dirt. Am I nuts? No, I'm a philosopher. I'm not interested in convincing people to adopt views that are erroneous! If I'm wrong, I want to find out NOW! The sooner I correct my errors, the sooner I can be right again.”

Sadly I realize, after some pleasant but inconclusive correspondence, that most who have offered views are not discussing my work. Instead they are challenging the starting points on which it is built. Some of these fundamentals, which I have long regarded as uncontroversial, are:

Three Fundamentals

1) The non-living universe just exists. It shows correlations that we call natural laws, but it gives no evidence of purpose. In the words of Richard Dawkins, “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference”.

2) All of the astonishing complexity of living things is the result of natural selection acting on replicating molecules, without supernatural help. Living things show apparent purpose in a way that the non-living universe does not (lungs are for oxygen absorption, legs are for locomotion etc.). It is easy to understand why this is a consequence of natural selection.

3) All human and animal mental function is the product of electrochemical reactions in the nerve cells of the brain. This applies without exception to human consciousness, free will, memory, and moral sentiments; in fact, to every product of the human emotions and intellect.

I do not feel that I should spend too much time defending these three statements. People abler than myself have already supplied overwhelming evidence and it is there for anyone to see. Many people (indeed the majority) reject these ideas, but they do so for reasons other than evidence. If you feel unwilling to accept them, I respect your right to do so, but perhaps you may best choose to press the delete button now!

For those of us with a stomach for the truth, however, there are important rewards. It is a consequence of 2) above that we can begin to understand our creator. We have been created by a simple and mathematically definable mechanism, which, despite the astonishing complexity of its products, offers opportunities for discovery both by deduction and by observation. It is certainly easier to understand than the mind of a god, whose only consistent policy, if he exists, seems to be an obsessive desire for self-concealment.

Despite its obvious consequences for philosophy, it is astonishing that most philosophers ignore evolution. John Harris is a contemporary philosopher with whom I have corresponded recently. His work is impressive, yet, in his otherwise excellent The Value of Life, he dismisses natural selection with the words: “...one could hardly describe the survival of the fittest and its corollary, the destruction of the weakest, as a humane (albeit human) arrangement.”

Of course he leaves unanswered the question “but why should I want to be humane?” Some might say, if you need to ask that question, then you are just a bad person – an answer good enough for everyday life perhaps, but not for philosophy.

The correct answer, at the level of fact, is that I want to be humane because that is how I have been created by natural selection. Human beings are genetically programmed to have a complex system of goals, both for self-interest and moral sentiments towards others. They also have instincts to co-ordinate these goals with others in their society and to negotiate reciprocation of morality. This system constitutes a huge body of information, a complex mechanism that has not arisen by chance out of thin air. Natural selection is its only possible source.

It frustrates me that supposedly intelligent and well read people naively dismiss evolution as being “red in tooth and claw” when in reality our evolution as a social species is our most important behavioural characteristic. It is not our physical strength, but our ability to co-operate that has made us the dominant species on earth. It only takes a moment’s reflection to understand that, at any time during the last million years, an individual with completely unethical behaviour would suffer a reduction in inclusive fitness.

The prisoners’ dilemma problem gives precision to what we already know. If we can co-operate and find ways to prevent cheating, then we can all be better off. Any animal that develops enough intelligence, memory and communication skill will evolve a system of co-operation and morality to exploit this very valuable resource. This is a function of information-processing ability only. Even if that developed on another planet, an ethical system would inevitably evolve.

This seems to be what many people find difficult to understand about the EVP. Our values must have an information source and the only available source is natural selection interacting with chance events; there is no other information input. We have the conclusion that we must choose natural selection or randomness as the basis of our values. A decision to reject randomness as a valid source can only be made as a subjective decision of our brains (which are, of course, the product of natural selection). The elegance of this realization is that we have a defined basis of mathematical precision on which further work can build.

Yet many people, following their evolved instincts to raise the standard of morality in their societies, say that we should rise above our base instincts installed by nature. Yet where does the information come from to specify what we should do differently? If we should rise, which way is up? There is no source for this information.

Of course we have seen an improvement in morality over time and some have tried to “explain” this by calling it an “emergent” property of society. But that is unnecessary mysticism. Morality has always been a good strategy for its participants and advances have been achieved by improvements in communications and social structures. It is the quality of our co-operative mechanisms that has changed, not the underlying values that they serve.

The main purpose of this newsletter is to invite discussion, if you are willing to indulge me with a little of your time. I make no restrictions on content  – I enjoy debate on philosophical topics with any intelligent commentator. But I would be particularly interested to hear from you if you are OK with the “fundamentals” above, even more if you can understand the “information source” argument for the EVP. And yes, I really would welcome a refutation if you can find one! Comments to dcameron1@btopenworld.com

Book orders:

The Purpose of Life by Donald Cameron (Woodhill Publishing 2001) gives a full discussion of the background and derivation of the EVP – the idea that the only non-random derivation values must be from a careful analysis of inclusive fitness. Some tentative analyses of its consequences and avenues for further enquiry are explored.

ISBN 0954029100 Price £12.00. Post & packing free in UK.

Outside UK add £4.00 per order (any number of copies).

(The total cost of a single copy order is approximately US$25.50 or EUR22.50, but will be charged to your credit card at the rate prevailing on the day.) The book may be ordered from any bookshop, via Amazon UK or direct from the publishers using the order form on www.woodhillpublishing.co.uk by fax or post. Woodhill normally dispatches on the day of receipt of order