Before life, nothing mattered. There was no meaning. No value. No emotion. No thought. Noone to observe. No one to name things. No one to care. Just rock and water.
Life is the 1 from zero. Life allows for logic, math, concepts, representations, language, technology, emotions, meaning, and all the rest that we fight for.
Life without death is boundless like the universe.
If life is the first thing that mattered, then death is the second.
Without death, life would not know loss.
Death creates competition, speed, and endurance.
Knowledge of death creates urgency, planning, and consideration.
Death forces procreation and adaptation.
Without death, there would be only very old single-celled bacteria. Maybe not? Maybe, there are other reasons to reproduce?
Wouldn't we have to use external observation in the form of some material mechanism?
Maybe one would think that animals could tell us what it is like to be them. Maybe we could interpret their languages and understand that they are experiencing what we are experiencing.
How would you explain to a foreign person that has never heard the word consciousness what consciousness is? How would a dolphin explain to us that it is conscious? How would we ask it?
Saying that humans have consciousness is a fact and then postulating that that fact is an indicator that all things are conscious seems like a very big leap. If consciousness is at the root of all physical reality then many entities would experience the world in a similar way as humans and should at least experience some form of consciousness.
How is consciousness defined? If the definition comes from the only thing we know is conscious then the definition must include the aspects that are linked to the human we experience of it. This means that it would include characteristics such as a self-concept or self-representation, a stream of present tense external and internal stimulus that includes some form of symbolic representation such as a language that interprets, analyses and integrates stimulus in a meaningful and expressible manner.
If the only way we know that something is conscious is to ask them and if we ask someone if they are conscious and they say yes why should we believe them? Why should we trust our own perception of consciousness? How, other than appealing to physical reality, would we ground our confidence that consciousness exists?
Philip also relies on the difference between quantity and quality but I didn't get a good definition of quality. Maybe it is just another term for subjective valuation and has no objective base. If that is true and "quality" can not be judged then there is no reason to study it as it can neither be wrong or right. So how does someone who thinks consciousness is only qualitative expect to study it?
Is there a way to evaluate quality in the form of quantity such as a degree of happiness, or a degree of redness? Also, I'm not sure if "redness" is a qualitative characteristic. Experiences can be quantified such as how many times one experiences something or the amount of hormones, neurotransmitters, and electrical activity that exist before, during and after an experience.
If you care about science then you must care about the means in which we verify intuitions. Also, Philip repeats the idea that neuroscientists can only get at a correlation between brain activity and conscious accounts but that correlation does not disprove causation as much as it proves causation. Also, neuroscience is not the only science that studies consciousness.
Philip keeps asking Sean to explain what a particle is as opposed to what it does but he doesn't explain how if everything is conscious how would we ever prove it if materialism or scientific methods or empiricism is on a different level as consciousness. It is a kind of unmoved mover kind of argument. It's not that physical reality includes consciousness it is that consciousness is what physical reality actually is and therefore cannot be explained by physical reality. Saying that what we do when we do math or science is just describe the behavior of consciousness doesn't explain consciousness or prove its existence at all. It is the same argument that God is before time and space and therefore one can not prove its existence using science.
Why should consciousness be on a different ground than any other concept? It should not be held up higher than any other hypothesis or theory. We should be skeptical of our assumptions regardless of how real they feel and we should be skeptical of our willingness to separate things because they seem mysterious and miraculous. We should ask questions about what we are talking about when we use the word consciousness and why it's important.
I suppose what I mean is I should ask these questions and look into the subject more.
Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast was launched in July of 2018 and it is my favorite new podcast of this year. I tend to enjoy two types of podcasts; educational, focusing on philosophy, science and culture and comedic. I have been listening to a variety of podcasts including The Joe Rogan Experience, Doug Loves Movies and Waking Up with Sam Harris and I am always looking out for the next great podcast. There are a lot out there but finding one that matches my interests, has an engaging host and is not overproduced can be difficult but Sean Carroll's podcast ticks off all the boxes.
I don't remember the first time I listened to Sean Carroll but I remember being immediately impressed by his intellect, calm rationality, and ability to speak about complex topics in a way that was accessible and engaging. Sean is a theoretical physicist and is very knowledgeable about topics such as cosmology and quantum physics but I have been more interested in his views on philosophical topics such as consciousness, morality, and the nature of reality. I rarely become excited when I find out that someone has a podcast but when I heard that Sean Carroll was starting one I couldn't wait.
With guest's like Carlo Rovelli talking about quantum mechanics, Megan Rosenbloom on the death positive movement, and, more recently, Lisa Aziz-Zadeh discussing embodied cognition the Mindscape podcast offers a wide spectrum of ideas delivered by very smart people that I would have never heard about otherwise. We all get to benefit from Sean's curiosity relating to the current state of science, philosophy, and culture and with his talent of explaining things in simplified and more accessible ways, we do not have to drown in industry-specific terminology and indiscernible abstract concepts, although I will admit that I do not grasp everything discussed. He reminds me of Richard Dawkins in that he is a great ambassador for scientific knowledge and rationality.
I appreciate that Sean does not talk down to the audience or to his guests and I really appreciate his demeanor. He speaks calmly without being monotone or boring. You can tell that he is genuinely excited about the topics at hand and that he is really listening to his guests speak. There are many scientific intellectuals but it is a rare gift to be able to speak about science in a way that is understandable and engaging and Sean does this exceptionally well. I think that it is important to continue to expand my own understanding of the universe and I am glad that I have found a source that packs so much of what I love into one place.
If you are curious about the world, appreciate intelligent conversations, and want to expand your mind I recommend that you check out Sean Carroll's Mindscape podcast. Also, its free so there's no good reason not to.
I don't fully understand what the goal of this article is. I was watching a lot of online personalities talking about all the societal conflicts that exist in America and in other countries and I kept thinking that while we often talk about the benefits of diversity we do not always talk about the negative side when it comes to a specific type of diversity; diversity of ideology and moral philosophy. There are belief systems that we adopt in an effort to succeed in communities and families and as individuals and when these beliefs are directly threatened by others we feel the need to defend our "side" of the argument. It's important that others know where our moral boundaries are because they represent our strategies for living and thriving so it is no wonder that they are fought for so dearly.
So what can I do to understand the circumstances and perspectives that lead to so much conflict? What can be done when so many hold so many others as the "enemy" of their way of life? This article is an investigation into my own thinking about the social conflicts I see represented mainly by the media I consume. I insert videos and articles in sections to give readers an additional source of information as well as to make the article more entertaining. I hope you enjoy this haphazard romp through my mind under the influence of online media.
1. Inside America
A. Protests Do modern protests work? In my mind, it doesn't seem that anyone is changing their minds based on what is said or done at protests. There are countless YouTube channels dedicated to showing off how stupid and uninformed protestors are from all sides. Protestors don't seem to want to debate or persuade the other side. Their message is one of self-righteous bullying with screaming, destruction, violence and provocation. No one in power seems to care what these people want and nothing productive comes from them.
So, why do people form large groups, stand around public areas and accomplish nothing? I think it is partly due to the idolization of prior public figures who, in the past, gained prominence through protests. People like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi are touted as historical heroes for their roles in generating awareness around an issue on a large scale through their use of protests which garnered public solidarity. It is also partly due to the massive entitled immaturity and megalomaniacal personalities of many of the protestors.
Modern protestors do not have the same kind of morally salient principles that famous advocates such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi had. These prior protestors based their grievances on rational moral arguments such as legal equality, taxation, and freedom. Today's protestors already benefit from a radically more equal and free society so when they fight for values such as endless immigration, radical socialism, and identity politics it doesn't have the same moral weight as in the past. Modern protestors do not make the kinds of persuasive arguments required for their causes to have an impact on the general public especially when the outrage seems out of proportion with what they fight for.
Protestors who demand that others bend to their will via government policy are immature because they don't understand that others do not want to subjugate themselves to the will of others and they are megalomaniacal because they imagine themselves as so morally righteous that they are willing to use force to enact their desires. They would rather demand the government cow-tow to their desires to enforce their rules and their whims without oversight or justification. Instead of appealing to individual freedom and moral reasoning they appeal to authority to solve the issues they claim without fully thinking about the consequences of enacting such regulations. Also, the government doesn't work on behalf of screaming groups. The checks and balances of the government, while often times slow to change and corrupted by power, at least offer a process for analyzing proposed policies on behalf of all the people instead of just enacting dictatorial mandates from small groups.
The only protests that seem to work come from a peaceful demonstration founded on moral reasoning that gives voice to groups of people who were previously unorganized. Government policies should not be determined based on the emotional outcries of entitled college students and irrational maniacs. If people use screaming, force and violence to accomplish their goals they will only get resistance from those that value civil discourse. Only through moral reasoning will the masses be convinced that a cultural change is necessary and it is only when it is in the government's best interest that it will respond to changing cultural expectations.
An example of this is the recent federal change in marriage laws for gay people. It took years of people discussing the moral underpinnings and practical implications of gay rights before enough people agreed and for the federal government to make a major change in the laws. This is how democracies work. They take time, argumentation and general agreement for change to occur which requires patience and reasoning on behalf of those who care to make America a better place.
B. Political Conflicts (Left Vs. Right) I have been watching a lot of YouTube videos of Jonathan Haidt explaining the differences between the left and the right. What I have gathered is that they both offer important perspectives regarding how societies should organize policies. One issue, I see, is the lack of balance in each approach. Too much collectivism, as pursued on the left, leads toward the subjugation of the individual, excesses in wealth distribution, authoritarianism and denial of the corruptible nature of humans in power. Leftists believe that if only the societal environment were more perfect then so would be the people be within it. Unfortunately, the only way to control the societal environment is through engineering and control. Hence, they see the government's role as being the force for that control.
Alternatively, the conservation of status quo policies and purity, as pursued on the right leads to another form of authoritarianism which doesn't allow for changing ethical considerations, global cooperation, and secular values. In their pursuit of order and tradition, the right has a hard time adapting to new information, especially when it has religious or cultural implications. This thinking leads toward policies that discriminate against those who do not fit into the tradition or those who pursue more hedonistic endeavors. The right wants to use the government to confirm dissidents to their frame of reference and maintain the purity of a system that they see as moral and effective. Gay rights, drug laws, and foreign policy come to mind as things the right hasn't dealt with well in the past.
While traditionally conservatives have supported smaller government intervention and liberals have supported freedom the current political expectation seems to be in how each party can spend more of the public's money in the way they see fit. Even the designations I am using, right and left, exemplifies the divide between the principles each party grounds their policy strategies. They are opposites, mutually exclusive and therefore zero-sum. If one wins the other loses and since both believe so strongly in their positions they are willing to fight (hopefully not to the death) for their ideas. How can a government move forward for the people if the people running it have opposing goals?
There are three solutions to this division that I think might help. One is to give each side less power over the other. Lessen the role of government as the libertarian's desire and force people to deal with each other on a more individualistic basis. The second way is to help those of one political bent or the other see the similarities that exist between the two groups. Focus on shared goals and common threats in order to bind America together. The third idea is to promote compromise and humility. Both groups need to recognize the limitations of their philosophies and work toward balancing the conversation using evidence and morality as a guide.
Here is a Ted Talk Jonathan Haidt gave about the division between the Left and Right.
C. Ideological Conflicts (Communism Vs. Capitalism) Ideology is the underlying system of beliefs that inform a person or group's perspective on fundamental values. Where morals describe specific dispositions toward right and wrong, ideology describes the matrix in which morals intermingle and influence each other and inform broader decisions and behavior. Just like the divide between the political left and right, opposing ideological principles cause many of the conflicts that we see growing inside of America today. It is in the fundamental philosophical dispositions that we judge actions and make decisions. When two groups have opposing solutions to big problems it is our shared ideologies that, as Jonathan Haidt says, "Binds and blinds" us together and keeps us compromising with the "other".
Take, for instance, the concepts of capitalism and communism. These are opposing value systems that inform political policies and social interactions. They impose rules for behavior and dictate levels of state power and allocation of resources. Capitalism relies on principles such as respect for property rights, individual ownership of resources, trade (with varying degrees of regulation), prices are generally determined by markets, voluntary association, and individuality. These principles inherently produce financial inequality but distribute financial power among more people (groups) allowing for more fluctuations in both failure and success.
Communism explicitly opposes the principles of capitalism in that communism relies on central power and decision making based on the assumption that decisions about resource allocation can be done perfectly if only it were under a singular control. Communism requires that property and thus resources be controlled by a small group of decision-makers, trade is replaced with rations, prices are determined via committee, no freedom of association and focuses on the forest (group), neglecting the needs of the trees (individuals).
So, how can people within a country that hold such fundamentally opposing ideologies ever get along? If they can't then what can be done? During the Cold War, the negative effects of the communist philosophy were actively resisted and persecuted, potentially to the detriment of individual freedom but for reasons of maintaining the system that has produced massive increases in wealth and standards of living that all classes have benefited from. It is ironic that those that hold the group above the individual (communism) would accept a philosophy that requires everything to be controlled by a central agency. (Communism requires distribution of resources based on needs and therefore some agent must calculate those needs.)
Where do ideologies come from? I think the first place to look is in childhood, where people are first introduced to moral concepts. There is a reason that most religious people adhere to the religion of their parents. Parents play a major role in determining the kinds of environments, conversations, and interactions that shape how children develop their moral philosophies. If parents promote collectivism over individuality they are priming their child for a worldview conducive to communism. This isn't to say that understanding the benefits of community and compassion for others is not a virtue but when it takes precedence over the individual it can lead to a top-down approach to society as opposed to the bottom up ideation of focusing on the individual first.
Schools are also responsible for shaping the minds of children but there is so much to say about the systematic problems with the American public school system that I do not know where to start. Teachers tend to be women, women tend to lean left, which leans communistic, for one (I know this is a huge generalization). K-12 schools do not focus on philosophy, logic, argumentation or morality and if they did it would probably produce outcomes as mediocre as the current system produces in terms of performance, life skills, and promoting individual potential. It seems that post-high school academia is the biggest culprit of promoting anti-capitalistic ideologies. Colleges are primarily run by those on the left and those that see the government as the answer to society's problems and thus many college students begin to learn about how communism, in its "ideal form", would produce a utopia that we would all benefit from.
I think as time goes by and people see the disadvantages of traditional school systems a more diverse and practical system will emerge, primarily online. People will be less indoctrinated by public schools and colleges, leading toward a more balanced and practical acceptance of moral philosophies that do not require massive government control. At least that is my hope. Again, it comes down to balance. A system that has no room for individual freedom of choice skews the world toward slavery and a system that is void of order leaves no room for stability. Without the rule of law trade can not thrive but with too many restrictions there can be no peace.
Here is an article about moral conflicts and how difficult they are to resolve.
Moral or Value Conflicts
By Michelle Maiese
Originally Published July, 2003; Current Implications section added by Heidi Burgess in April 2017.
A. Personality Personality plays a major role in how we interact with the world and it has a high genetic component. Where personality describes a person's character and interactions with the world in general, which takes into consideration all possible interactions, political attitudes describe a person's attitudes toward a more narrow set of situations; those that are social and hierarchical. Political attitudes dictate one's orientation toward how people should behave in a society and how the government should influence and regulate those behaviors.
Going into this section I assumed that it was a simple task to bridge the gap between personality and politics. I assumed that those that were more conservative would be more orderly, conscientious, and stable. I assumed that those that identified as liberal would be more open to experience, compassionate, and agreeable but after reading a couple of scholarly articles (listed below) I found that the correlation between personality traits and political behavior may be due to an underlying genetic variable that influences both. This does not change the relevance of the correlation but indicates a stronger and more primitive genetic influence in individual dispositions.
Taking into consideration that, based on the paper "Correlation no Causation"(linked below) , the genetic component accounts for roughly 50% for both personality traits and political attitudes we can better understand how people come to their beliefs and how they might be changed. This understanding should allow us to not be so angry with others knowing that they are not in complete control of their genetic predispositions or the environment they were born into. This does not mean that people aren't accountable and adults who have had exposure to moral arguments have an opportunity to go against the grain and align themselves with better ideologies. If people can better understand the influences on their ideologies they can better resist those that are not morally justifiable and hopefully be open to alternative ideas.
Here is a YouTube clip of Jordan Peterson discussing personality and political leanings.
Here are a couple of interesting articles that discuss personality and politics. This is a huge topic so I might write more about it in the future. For now, I offer some things to ponder.
Recently, in my investigation into ideology and politics, I have come across someone that seems to have a great understanding of human behavior and how it relates to both psychology and evolution. The following YouTube video is by Jonathan Haidt and describes how the individual evolved a reliance on the social world for meaning. Check it out and see what you think.
I think the only reason I bring up male and female differences here is to give a little context to why the two sexes differ on average in certain areas of life but I don't think that women and men differ on fundamental goals. In societies that are wealthy enough to concentrate on more abstract concepts we can argue about how to better things but when it comes down to it men and women need each other and our species cannot continue to thrive without cooperation between the sexes. We should celebrate the evolutionary advantages that the two sexes have been specialized to excel at and we should not pretend that all men and women are the same just like we shouldn't pretend that all people are the same. Also, keep in mind that statistical averages and tendencies do not dictate behavior, they only generalize observations about behavior. Statistics describe the past and individuals dictate the future. It is up to everyone to determine what they think is the right behavior in each moment and with better understanding people might be able to make better decisions that benefit themselves and others.
One statistical difference between men and women is their differing orientations toward people and things. Women tend to focus on endeavors that involve the nurturing, facilitation and the maintenance of people. This explains why they are over-represented in medical and social services, education and administrative assistance and why women are more likely to adopt political attitudes that have to do with helping people such as social programs, equal rights, and other liberal policies. Men tend to focus on things, so they lean toward endeavors that involve technology, transportation, and management. This last one seems like it would be a female endeavor because management often entails people but I think men end up in management because they treat the team as a system or machine. They can take the emotional aspect out of the equation and look at each person as a part of a system that's goal is effectiveness and efficiency, not as individual personal successes. This tendency is good for assessing the allocation of labor but not in maintaining morale. That is why good HR policies help facilitate work relationships and good managers do not neglect the human side of the business.
The feminine and masculine are the two sides of life. The yin and yang. The order and the chaos. The emotional and the rational. Just like everything else, balance requires the acceptance and understanding of other's feminine and masculine tendencies as well as your own feminine and masculine tendencies. Also, understanding how men and women differ in their communication styles can help forgo needless arguments and misunderstandings. There are many resources for understanding how men and women differ with respect to communication styles, expectations and goals so I recommend looking into to these differences to better understand how other's think and behave to understand what goes wrong in relationships whether at work, at home or in society. Anything that can help 50% of the population get along with the other 50% of the population seems helpful, although, I admit, it's probably not the biggest problem in America.
This YouTube clip discusses some of the differences that men and women have regarding social expectations and communication.
In the following Youtube clip, Jordan Peterson talks about how the sexes diverge when given the freedom to choose their occupation.
*The following article is not necessarily the one being referenced in the YouTube clip above. It is just one study I found that backs up the claim that Jordan Peterson is talking about.
Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings Paul T. Costa Jr., Antonio Terracciano, and Robert R. McCrae National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health
A. Narratives and Persuasion The first step to peace is the denial of force as a means to enact change. If we accept this axiom then we are left with the difficult task of persuading others through words. This is where argumentation and debate become valuable and essential to society. This rests on the right to freedom of speech which should not be taken for granted. The following podcast discusses moral argumentation in an informed way and talks about the power of narrative to help persuade others. If one can frame an issue in a way that is both relevant and relatable by using real-world examples, appealing to strongly held beliefs and not using insults one can persuade others without alienating them or attacking their identity.
B. Jonathan Haidt: How common threats can make common (political) ground
4. Closing Thoughts
A. Ascetic Preferences Vs. Justifiable Force (Morals and Laws)
On important factor to think about is the difference between what we would prefer people do and what we are willing to force people to do. We should not take lightly the application of force, especially through the rule of law. Nearly any law, if it is enforced, means the potential for violent outcomes and therefore we should take seriously those laws we promote. Also, keeping in mind that once a law is created it is nearly impossible to retract.
B. Religion?
I'm not mentioning religious differences much here because it is such a big topic that it deserves its own article and because others have discussed it thoroughly. Just google religious conflicts and you will get your fill. Obviously, people are passionate about religion and religious ideas are a large cause for conflict but the purpose of this article was to investigate things that I have not spent as much time on and to understand something new.
C. This last section contains the thoughts that sparked this blog article as well as additional media to ponder.
When you look at a population in terms of diversity of ethnicity, color or culture you will notice degrees of integration. Integration and harmony only come from shared value systems. Ethical boundaries have to be respected for individuals to get along so when people hold compatible belief systems they can collaborate and work productively.
Instead of focusing on the diversity of race, ethnicity, and culture we should be focusing on what we all have in common. What are our goals as individuals and as groups? Differences among us can be characterized as either superficial and insignificant or deep and important, and the distinction is important. In order to get along, we must be honest about what we care about and think hard about what we have in common. If it is nothing then we will fight and if it is everything then we are the same.
In a society whose population is less integrated, it can be presumed that there are conflicting value systems guiding individuals in each group. Individuals look out for the group and have to make moral judgments on behalf of the community. It is only individuals that can act.
People do not want diversity. A diversity of value systems causes conflict. What we really want is a shared value system that binds us in peace. We are all displaying our value systems and groups take on the value systems of their followers.
Why focus on differences? Shouldn't we focus on similarities? Like shared values and ethics. What happens when two groups hold opposing values? For example, if one values freedom and another values slavery. How can they ever work together? Why should one be a slave to the other?
Moral or Value Conflicts
By Michelle Maiese
Originally Published July, 2003; Current Implications section added by Heidi Burgess in April 2017.
If Postmodernism can be characterized as a philosophy predicated on the denial of logic, science and reason, then by what standard do they substantiate their claims?
Without a standard measurement tool to judge the validity of a claim all claims are valid, therefore, in order to decide which claim should be followed one must rely on some form of scheme or model that becomes a mechanism to reach an ideal outcome.
There have been no better tools for exacting change in the world than those of the logical and scientific kind.
Why should I believe that logic, debate, math, science and capitalism are only tools of "the oppressor" without appealing to some attempt at a logical argument?
You can't just say that it is true because you say it's true. Then anything anyone said could be true. "That's a rock," one could say. "That's a tree," another might say. But if they are both pointing at the same thing and have distinct definitions of the words rock and tree, then both cannot be true. If there is any kind of truth it would be one that helped people navigate the differences between a rock and a tree.
The degree to which two people can communicate honesty and accurately is related to the degree to which they agree on the definitions of the words they use. In other words, the less agreement in definitions the more communication breaks down, and without rational discourse the only options left are fight, flight or submit.
If one person defines freedom as freedom to forcing others to act and another person defines freedom as the freedom from other people's actions and another defines freedom as freedom to act then a discussion on freedom between these people will most likely become contentious. Especially because they all prescribe their own boundaries of the others' precious freedoms.
In order to persuade others, in a world where the value of intelligence is increasing, you would be advised to utilize the tools of the intelligent.
A reason that Postmodern believers are achieving so much at certain Universities, in that they are achieving violence, suppression, destruction, etc., is because that type of behavior is strictly prohibited in the normal world outside certain Universities. The Universities that allow for mayhem to occur on their campuses are not setting a good example to their students about how the real world works.
In the real, working world, you don't get to foist your opinions on others by way of force. In order to succeed in a free market economy you have to get along and cooperate with others. If you want to use force then you will be met with force and if you break the law you will be met with an unbalanced return of force in order to swiftly punish those that cause violence.
If a Postmodernist were to propose laws that infringe on other's freedoms then they will be making the claim that their laws are just and lead to some ideal outcome. Luckily there is a mechanism for determining how strong this statement is. Unluckily though, the mechanism is logic, reason, science, debate and all the things Postmodernists believe are only tools of the oppressors.
Isn't someone who is currently oppressing others' freedoms, such as the freedom of association, freedom of speech, and freedom from violence, a tool of the oppressor?
If you want to fight oppression then at least fight the real oppressor, the government, not fellow citizens trying to pay their rent and shit. Taxes, unjust acts, wrongful imprisonment, corruption, etc., all all products of the governments around the world. What mechanism is in place to squelch these indiscretions in the government? At least in capitalism one can opt out of supporting a business regime they find destructive and immoral.
If words can oppress then any words a Postmodernist says can and will be used against them in the court of public opinion.
One problem I have in accepting determinism is the word determinism. Determinism implies a determiner which assumes some sort of agency. This makes sense due to the roots of determinism being either religious or scientific. From the religious perspective all actions are pre-determined by a deity agent and from the scientific perspective knowledge is gained from observation from human agents. Determinism from the scientific point of view is based on cause and effect and the lacking of true human agency in the equation. Humans are simply subject to prior causes and the effects cascade toward more cause and effect chains. This would be better described as "Causalism", not determinism.
Because determinism rests of the concept of knowable causal forces it is simpler and more objection to call it causalism. If causality can be mapped with perfection then the future would, presumably, be predicted but not determined. Determination seems like inevitability based on an agent's word instead of an objective assessment of what physical forces should do. The future doesn't exist and I believed that no matter how precise we can observe reality there would likely be missing data, error, or other mysterious forces such as underlying quantum chaos that would make perfect knowledge and predictability impossible. We might get to 99.9% but it still wouldn't be determined, just very accurately predicted.
Are all physical forces consistent, constant and reliable? I am not sure. While logic has taught us to rely on physics due to it's reliable predictive power it doesn't mean that there is some room for variation and change. The universe is mysterious and science is a fairly new discipline. We should not be so vein to think that we understand what is immutable. For example, if the speed of light is not fixed then many calculations would be wrong. We should be skeptical about our assumptions. This is an interesting TedTalk about the potential misconceptions in science. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE
This doesn't mean we should discount science. The scientific method is certainly the best way to test truth claims about reality but I think there is room for philosophy as well.
Ruminations on Free Will:
Why can't a mind be a direct cause of an effect? If so why can't the agent, who owns the mind, be in control (choice) of that cause? Free will may lie somewhere in the chaos of the mind or somewhere in the conscious effort to change the future. The mind is just as physical as genetics and environment so why can't it have a discreet effect on reality and the future?
If all causes are products of prior effects and causes then can there be a first cause? This seems to lead toward a deity outside of time and space. The "turtles all the way down" argument doesn't lead anywhere.
If causes and effects can occur spontaneously or arise from complexity then the mind seems like a prime candidate for a machine capable of creating new chains of causation.
I do admit that I want Free Will to exist. I think it allows for more personal responsibility and change and I feel that I am free to make certain decisions. I do not believe in complete freedom and I admit that most actions are a product of prior or current physical forces acting inside and outside of myself that I can not control. But in those few moments where choice comes into play, and I can slow down and see the potential outcomes of an action I believe that "I" am free to choose. This may be rare and training myself to recognize them may be a lifelong discipline but it seems to increase my well being.
I think the evolution of consciousness is a tricky subject because consciousness exists in the brain and the brain is super complex. There are millions of neurons coordinating, activating and communicating with endless results and most of the actions that happen in the brain have nothing to do with consciousness as we understand it.The idea that humans are the only animal with a form of consciousness is highly debated but I would like to be open to the fact that many other animals have a similar set of brain states that, if we could analyze them, would be called consciousness. Consciousness to me is the inner monologue and overall processing that produces recallable memories as well as a linear basis for the continuity that allows for the notion of a self. Consciousness is the ability to communicate with ourselves and with others. Consciousness is the NOW that we are constantly working to understand and legitimize through to create a workable space to live in and consciousness is, to me, the illusion of control.
A long time ago in our evolution something changed in our biological ability to communicate in a way that would lead to a major change in our social lives. Primates are social animals and rely on social cooperation to succeed in surviving and propagating the species.Animals learn in many different ways and I believe that humans began to learn by means of verbal and visual communication strategies. These began as simple grunts and gestures and then evolved slowly to include more variability in individual sounds to represent more and more real world ideas.As language progressed humans began to draw pictures to teach other about practical things such as solving problems like hunting or determining when to go to safety. The teaching and communicating of ideas is what I think led to our eventual formation of complex language and to what we call consciousness.
So what happened in humans to create this major change in social development? I think it was a combination of a biological singularity that allowed humans the possibility to use an excess of neurons for more and more novel uses and an environment that promoted rapid adaptation and social cooperation. Also, the close proximity of young to their parents in primates living in a harsh environment may have led to the opportunity and need to teach children in more and more effective ways, thus drawing and clarifying language may be a product of these types of interacting circumstances.
As language developed in ancient humans the growing complexity of individual representations used in language would necessitate memorization and practice to ensure the continuation of teaching strategies from generation to generation. Through this memorization and practice the brain may have become better and better at internalizing these language parts and utilizing part of the brain’s processing faculties to this task and therefore a stream of consciousness developed. Now I can imagine that once the ability to memorize language and think internally about the world might allow for a revolution in humanity because now an individual with a good grasp of the language could better teach new things they learned as well as make plans about the future. The ability to plan things and think about the world on a timeline is thought of as a characteristic of human consciousness and something that separates us from the rest of animals and I think that it was the need for communication that led to all of humanities new abilities.
So where does control come in to play and what about free will? Well, I think that we take free will for granted but it is not such a simple concept. While I admit that we are responsible for our actions we are completely limited by our current environment and our biological proclivities. We only have free will as long as we do not expect to be free to do anything at all. We have the ability to make a limited number of choices based on a limited numbers of current possibilities. This is where determinism comes from and the idea that if we knew all the factors down to the individual relationships between atoms and physical forces we could determine every possible outcome and therefore nothing is really free. I believe there is truth is the concept of determinism but what I think is more important is the idea of quantum chaos or the law of uncertainty that makes a rift between the possibilities we can postulate and the actual happenings in reality.
There is a level of unpredictability to everything but we still have the unending need to create patterns and consistencies to understand and navigate the world. We attempt to focus our thinking and simplify the data to make decisions and we are often rushed or do not have the time to really contemplate the reality of our predicaments. So when we make decisions we have already predicted the outcome and due to the limited number of possibilities we are often times correct, which goes to reify the concept of control as well as reinforcing the strategy used in the previous prediction. Also, we concentrate on outcomes that are consistent with our predictions and gloss over the outcomes that are confusing or otherwise unpredicted which only furthers the idea that we have control because we disregard this useless information. This illusion of control also leads to self-confidence, which is one of the most attractive traits to humans, which suggests how it is evolutionarily positive to use language to predict and manage life’s problems and to advertise one’s own predictive abilities.
So, there is a lot going on in the conscious mind of men and women but it is not necessarily important for humans to have free will in the classical sense. I think that biological creatures such as humans are products of three things: the environment, the individual’s biology and chemistry, and the constant process of data acquisition, filtration and analyzation of information. Consciousness is now a super complex form of a once simple tool for communication but control is a kind of useful illusion to give meaning to events and allow for patterns to emerge from very complicated circumstances. We are limited by our senses and we are controlled by no one thing.I like to think of the brain as a mess of wires that are all connected at millions of crossroads and consciousness is just another electrical line weaving its way through the mess like a twisting and morphing snake, never ceasing and impossible to catch.
So when Christians say that science is making great strides to help them reinforce their faith by illuminating the “Designer” in the natural world it is yet another attempt to high jack scientific thoughts. One of these scientific discoveries it the theory of the Big Bang:At the beginning of time and space there was a singularity or a dot of condensed mass and all at once it exploded in all directions and it seems that this must be due to a God making it happen. One Christian apologetic put it this way; if there is a cause then there must be a ‘causer’. I’ve heard it also said that there can’t be something from nothing so god is the something before the Big Bang. And all things burst from his mouth and it was good I guess.
The main reason scientists believe the big bang is a viable theory is that it was discovered that the universe is expanding. Things are constantly floating away from the center is a uniform yet accelerating way.This leads to the logical conclusion that at one point in time all the universe was in that center as a super dense mass. So the idea that something came from nothing is to negate the idea the dense mass was something. Also, it is like a Christian to take one piece of incomplete text and turn it into doctrine. They say, “no, you guys came up with it, and now we know god is real because he is outside space and time (supernatural) and space and time only existed after the big bang.”
This is how simple people think.They take one idea and run with it instead of doing what any skeptical, intelligent person would do which is to probe the idea, discuss possible exceptions of explanations and continue to study the theory. There are so many theories that go past the big bang and many that try to discover more underlying realities involved in the universe that may prove the big bang theory to be laughable but it is the search and continued skepticism that keeps science going and our understanding evolving. Even if all the theories are proved incorrect it is still better than hanging the whole argument on “God did it.”
