Tough Road (Part 2)

Assuming you read Part 1: http://theepitomeofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2010/06/tough-road-part-1.html


I'm now faced with the difficult task of showing how a predetermined moral character can coexist with free will.

So first, I have to put the "will" into perspective. It seems to be that (at a basic level) all of our actions are driven by 1 of 2 forces - Will or Instinct. So let's get a better understanding of the two.

Instinct. Many associate this with the more subconscious (almost animalistic) behaviors - survival instinct, sex drive, hunger, etc.... However, I give "instinct" far more credit. Acting in accordance with ones own natural proclivities. Example - the decision to walk into a store and purchase an item instead of stealing the item is (for most) not an exercise of the will; it is purely instinctual behavior.

Will. I describe will power to be those actions we commit which are contrary to our instinctual behavior. This is an important distinction (for me at least). Will is not the drive to act; it is the drive/ability to act against our instinct.

I will provide a personal example. I do not drink alcohol. This is not a recent decision; I have been this way since I was in high school. For years I have defended this in numerous ways... I've used logic at times to suggest that I do not want to "make the mistakes of others". Or I have have considered that I simply have a stronger will power than others to resist (especially peer pressure). But looking back - I realize that the inclination was never really there to begin with. In short - it has been no real exertion of will to fight the temptation to drink, because there was no temptation to begin with. I've rationalized it in the past - but the reality is I am simply genetically predisposed to "not drink". And in fact, it would require more will power for me to drink than not.

So the question now is... What drives us to employ our will, why do we not act on instinct alone - all the time? The answer is (in part) Newton's First Law of Motion - an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless an external force is applied. I say "in part" because I do not believe it is external forces alone. After all, other living creatures continue to act according to instinct, even when faced with external forces; the actual behavior may be different but it is still driven by instinct none-the-less. So what additional variable causes humans to employ their "will"? Naturally - I believe it is our capacity for reason - that aspect of human nature which allows (even compels) us to question and rationalize those external forces.

When faced with any scenario, regardless how important or trivial, we are inclined to act according to our predetermined instinct, unless our interpretation, or rationalization, of external forces compel us to employ some measure of will either contrary or beyond our natural instinct.

Then again, I could be completely wrong....

A Tough Road (Part 1)

It took me years to "define" my religion. And I did this for a reason. There are many out there who reject the classical or traditional views of Christianity (and all other religions) and pretend to have their "own" belief system. And generally what I have found is that these people fall into 2 categories: 1) Their ideas were espoused 400 years ago and is nothing new, or 2) Their ideas are not based on any observable, supportable evidence (it's just some crazy idea they made up). My religious belief can be described best as ____________ (that's a discussion for another day, haha).

As I have stated before, I had generally accepted Kant's notion of Deontology as the system of "ethics/morals" that most closely aligned with my beliefs. But recently I have had a shift. And not surprisingly - after a little more research - it turns out that my ideas have (kind of) been around for quite a long time. While I wouldn't say it is identical - the themes are certainly close enough.


You see, my general premise is that although humans have free will, their basic moral character is predetermined by their genetic make up. On the surface, this is very similar to the philosophical view Compatibilism - the idea that free will and determinism can coexist. And although I certainly agree with free will, it is the determinism part I have a problem with. So I have to layout my problems with determinism while at the same time showing how my theory distinguishes itself. Secondly, like Compatibilism, I have to show how free will can coexist with predetermined moral character.

I have a tough road ahead.

Determinism: Basically the notion that all actions have been predetermined by the environment; there is no such thing as free will. I'm not afraid to admit that a basic reading of determinism sounds very closely related to my basic notion that our basic moral character is predetermined. But the primary difference is that I do not believe our "actions" are actually predetermined. Let's look more closely at Determinism from 2 primary points of view: Religious/Spiritual and Secular.
- Religious/Spiritual: One may believe that a spiritual entity (God) is the omnipotent being that has predetermined all actions. I will not attempt to argue against this perspective. This is a purely faith based perspective which is not based on any empirical evidence. I have nothing against one's faith - but there is no point in trying to discuss 'logically'.
- Secular: Without any spiritual interference or supernatural influence, the events of the natural world are governed by one undeniable force: the laws of physics. Under the right circumstances, those very laws produced life. With life, came a new set of governing principles - evolution. Without free will, I do not believe humans would have ever impacted the process of evolution; and if you have read any of my other blogs you know that I firmly believe humans have had a major impact on the evolutionary process. In short - the natural process of evolution gives me no reason to believe that humans would have become sentimental and sympathetic to humans with unfavorable traits. In my humble opinion, the very fact that humans are capable of choosing mates based on any other value than those that will ensure the greatest chance for survival is a direct contradiction to the natural process of evolution. And as such is the best argument for the notion of free will.
(In an ironic tangent... as the early human ancestors were evolving, the ability to 'reason' would have simply been a new trait which greatly increased our chances of survival - yet at the same time would ultimately be the trait which ensured humans would no longer breed only for the purpose of increasing the species' chance for survival.)

So in other words, without any supernatural influences, I equate determinism to the natural process of evolution - the natural course of actions as predetermined by the laws of physics and other environmental processes. But the moment we were able to "choose" a different path - we exercised our free will.

So - how do I now reconcile this notion of free will with the concept that our basic moral character is actually "predetermined"?

To be continued....

Philosophy is Dead (Part 3)

Assuming you read part 2: http://theepitomeofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2010/06/philosophy-is-dead-part-2.html

So where does this leave me? Thanks (in large part) to Immanuel Kant, there are 3 primary schools of thought with regard to ethics and morality: Deontology, Consequentialism, and Nihilism. And although not a traditional "philosophical school of thought" - I would include Religion as well. To this day, I have always skewed toward Deontology. Now I'll be the first to admit that I do not believe any one system of belief is adequate. There are situations in life that always require exceptions. But as I began to draft up this blog, I found myself scared that perhaps I had become a nihilist. I say 'scared' because I have traditionally been least fond of Nihilism (regardless of my fondness/respect for Nietzsche). But fortunately, I don't believe this is the case. Nihilism seeks to prove that either A) there is no basis for objective morality, or B) there is a basic primeval morality which drives us to do what is in our own best interest. So in actual fact, my belief is a direct opposition to Nihilism. Nietzsche believed that the "Christian" moral code was a slave mentality. At this moment - I am prepared to disagree. The Christian moral code is merely a reflection of the basic genetic instinct of humans to support our society.

That said - is the Christian (or any religion) moral code perfect? Absolutely not. After all - like all other philosophical approaches it was written by the few - for the many. Although the underlying themes are determined by the human genetic make-up, these schools of thought attempt to provide a basis on how "all" people should act.

And yet - while I am glad that I can confidently say that my proposal is not Nihilistic in nature - it still saddens me. This proposal is eerily close to "predestination" which I have never liked. Predestination technically implies that your "salvation" is predetermined. My premise here implies that "how you act" is predetermined by your genetic make-up. But sadly, I have seen virtually no evidence to disprove this idea. Sure there are people who will claim they have changed. But I am willing to bet that on closer observation you will see this is not the case. Although they may have "learned" a new moral code through necessity or repetition - but if these outside forces are removed - they are more inclined to return to their natural state than they are to continue with the "learned" behavior, especially when placed in a situation where the "learned" behavior is not in agreement with their predetermined genetic make-up.

Through circumstances beyond my control, I was forced to question the nature of faith, belief, and our actions at a relatively young age. And after years of study, I found that I agreed with Kant's deontological views (in the area of morality). It was the approach to which I could most easily relate and defend. And for the last 15 years or more I have done just that. But it has occurred to me recently, that not once have I ever actually based my actions on any deontological thought process. That is to say I do not stop and consciously think, "Can I will that my action become a universal law?" Minor decisions are not worth the time. And when evaluating major decisions I generally know how I want to resolve and will always look for ways to rationalize my behavior - even if it is to suggest that "Deontology" doesn't work in this case. So looking back I realize that deontology was simply the philosophical principle which most closely resembled the moral principles I already had.

Wrap up: Any philosophical or religious basis for ethics and morality is ultimately ineffective at providing an objective "reason" for our actions. More specifically no one particular method will inspire, or cause, you to act in a manner which your genetic make-up did not already determine. In the end it is like developing a complex methodology of determining why you like a certain color. No argument is going to cause you to like a different color than the one you do - and ultimately you will simply choose the philosophical argument which happens to justify your color. But all hope is not lost. New behavior can be learned - but not through philosophical or religious "preachings" - but through pressure from outside forces and your own genetic ability, or inability, to adapt to those forces.

Then again, I could be completely wrong.....

Philosophy is Dead (Part 2)

Assuming you read Part 1. http://theepitomeofmediocrity.blogspot.com/2010/05/philosophy-is-dead-part-1.html

There is a long standing debate which can be summed up nicely by the term "Nature versus Nurture". And up to this point in the discussion, my basic premise focuses on the nature side of the debate. But being the "epitome of mediocrity" I am - I cannot ignore the nurture side of the debate; I'm sure it will come as no surprise that I believe both play equally in our development.

It happens that there is a very nice example I can use to effectively address both my central premise - as well as the nature versus nurture debate. Given that we live in the digital era - I strongly recommend you watch the movie "Les Miserables" with Liam Neeson and Geoffrey Rush (and yes you should probably read the original Victor Hugo novel as well). On the surface, it would seem the general theme is that we can change; we do not act according to our genetic make up. But there is an interesting dichotomy here. In the story, a seemingly hardened criminal (Valjean) is transformed into a successful, morally righteous business man and philanthropist by a single act of kindness. But we also learn why he was imprisoned in the first place. As a young boy, Valjean was homeless and starving and in an act of desperation he stole some bread. The instinct to survive overruled his instinct to obey/support the needs of the society and for this he was imprisoned for nearly 20 years. So I could argue that Valjean was genetically predisposed to be a man of acceptable moral quality - but through the circumstances of his birth, he was forced to abandon these qualities. However, while on parole 20 years later, he stayed with a priest. The priest caught Valjean stealing at which time Valjean struck him down. This was not an act of desperation. But I would submit that this was 20 years of nurture. Valjean had "learned" a new moral code - take what you want when you can. That was the method of survival in prison. It is my belief that Valjean was genetically predisposed to be a "good" person. Through desperation and circumstances he was put into a position in which he learned a new moral code. But when the opportunity presented itself - through the kindness of the priest - Valjean quickly reverted to those moral codes his genetic make-up had provided him.

In a way, one could point out that this story actually refutes my point. After all, Valjean was able to "learn" a new moral code. This opens the door for us to believe that ethics really do have their place - it helps us teach the expected values of a society. But I am still inclined to disagree. While in prison, Valjean most certainly did not attend religious sermons or read philosophical treatises which "taught" him how one should conduct themselves in prison. Instead (just like the original theft) Valjean was merely adapting to survive. He had been placed in an environment in which the overwhelming majority was comprised of that 10-20% of society which does not have the genetic predisposition to function appropriately (and it is to be expected that 10-20% of the prison population - like Valjean - does have the "correct" genetic make-up). Later, when given the opportunity, it was much easier for Valjean to "transform" since his natural inclinations were never removed; he was never genetically altered. Had Valjean's original genetic make-up been "evil" - this act of kindness by the priest never would have changed a thing.

I believe nurture can certainly play a role in our development. But I believe that (for the majority) nurture is already steering us down the path our genetic make-up has already determined. It is only when placed in an environment which requires a new moral code, that nurture takes hold for our own survival. But at the first opportunity - our brains snap back not unlike a stretched rubber band returning to its natural state when you finally remove the external forces. (Note to self: can't wait to dissect A Clockwork Orange now, haha)

To be continued....

Philosophy is Dead (Part 1)

Philosophy is dead. More specifically, I should say, that branch of philosophy which deals with ethics and morality. And in fact, I presume it always was.

Now I readily admit, this is not a premise I believe to be absolute (at this point) - merely an hypothesis. But the more I think about it, I'm inclined to believe that our actions are determined more by our genetic make-up than our 'beliefs'. And to take it further - I believe that our very 'beliefs' are dictated by our genetics as well.

I have conjectured before, that the very evolution of the human race was dependent on our intellect - the ability to make tools, etc... But certainly it goes beyond this. Humans also learned to survive by living in packs - societies. Obviously, those humans which helped preserve the pack were more advantageous than those who did not. Through the natural course of evolution, ethics and morality were not matters of "right and wrong" - but were instead matters of survival. This was no unique characteristic in nature; plenty of other species survived in the same manner. But humans did develop a unique characteristic later - complex thought. This of course led to numerous new developments, the ability to reason, language, etc... But for the purpose of this discussion, the most important development was the concept of "I" - the awareness of one's self.

I'd love to explore the psychological impact of this - but, again, for the purpose of this discussion we will leap forward a bit. From our ability to reason, and our understanding of our self came that wonderful notion of "free will". Now certainly, this concept was not formalized until many years later with the advent of true philosophical thought - but the notions of "choice" existed none-the-less. And so it was that man slowly began to believe that his choices were his own.

Now, let's shift gears for a moment. If you look at most laws today, you will find that the largest majority of them are based on the actions of a few - not the majority. In fact, in most cases, the majority dictates that "their ways" are the accepted ways (majority rules). Now - look closely at philosophy and religion. Is it any different? It occurs to me that devices are little more than means by which we rationalize the actions of the majority and condemn the actions of the few. In short - the majority do not act according to our accepted beliefs - but instead our beliefs are a direct result of our genetic predisposition to act in the interest of society.

To be continued....

Evolution

This is a volatile subject. It usually ranks right up there with abortion and capital punishment. Personally, I am absolutely convinced that evolution is a fact of the natural world. But most religious conservatives choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence. But the point of this blog isn't to go through all of that evidence. Any time I talk to "Creationists", invariably I end up hearing the argument - "Why haven't humans evolved?". The obvious point being that if evolution were a true fact, humans would have evolved by now. The most common answer given by "Evolutionists" is that the process of evolution takes millions of years - and humans simply have not been around long enough to show evident signs of evolution (although it is a known fact that the species has increased in height over several thousand years).

But I think there is another answer I very seldom hear. I believe evolution in humans has been severely restricted due to 2 main factors: Technological Advancement and Morality/Sentimentality.

Technological Advancement: Evolution produces subtle changes in a species as it adapts to be more proficient within its environment. But for the first (known) time on the planet Earth - a species exists which can develop specialized tools which does 2 things: reduces the need for the species to evolve and alters the natural environment to meet the needs of the species as it exists today. Just look at the musculature of humans compared to virtually ever other known species on the planet. Pound for pound (relative to our size) humans are virtually the weakest physical species on the planet; a Chimpanzee can literally rip a man a part. Had early humans not developed the ability to produce tools/weapons - it is highly unlikely we would have survived at all, or we would have evolved to be stronger and more capable of protecting ourselves in the wild. But technological advancement leveled the playing field as strength gave no discernible advantage to humans that hunted in groups with tools and weapons.

Morality/Sentimentality: In the natural (animal) world - evolution produces subtle genetic mutations over long periods of time. Those genetic mutations which are favorable and/or advantageous get propagated through the species and becomes more prevalent. Those mutations which are less favorable, generally do not survive long enough to propagate the species with those genetic changes. But our ability to reason and rationalize has brought with it morality and sentimentality. Thus when humans are born with less than favorable attributes, there is always someone that feels compassion or even love - and these "less than favorable" attributes are continually propagated through the human species; stupid people breed all the time (and usually more than they should because they are too stupid to use preventative measures).

Now - it's important to understand that I do not have a problem with either of these concerns. I am certainly not opposed to Technological Advancement. But consider the morality angle... We may find that humans slowly begin to evolve - if we learn to eradicate any humans that do not possess beneficial traits. But where would this take our society - what kind of life would that be? Can we really accept killing or quarantining people because we think their traits are less valuable? And who are we to decide? And ultimately - all this does is create an artificial selection - in much the same way we have evolved chickens and turkeys to be larger, for our consumption. Unfortunately - it is the world's largest Hawthorne Effect. Because we can understand and study evolution - our own evolution is impacted by that very study/observation. Evolution (natural selection) is very real, and the lack of evidence in the human species is no argument against it.

Then again, I could be completely wrong....

Alien life

Perhaps as a matter of coincidence, I had been reading and watching a lot of shows on space recently - most notably getting caught up on the COSMOS series by Carl Sagan - when the new show on Discovery Channel launched (Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking). And speaking of coincidences - the subject of life on other planets is always at the forefront of these shows.

It has got to be the single biggest question anyone ever ponders about the universe. Are we alone? And obviously you can't spit without hitting someone with an opinion on this (and around here that opinion is largely driven by the person's religion). And since I'm generally no different, I'd like to capture a few of my thoughts - albeit without the religious connotations (mostly).

So it seems to be generally accepted that life on earth is the product of a series of "accidents". That is to say that unique occurrences transpired in just the right manner to create molecules capable of creating copies of themselves at which point evolution took hold - and the rest is history.

So the first question then becomes - what is the likelihood of these occurrences taking place in other parts of the universe? Well admittedly it would have to be pretty rare - but considering the size of the universe, the odds certainly increase. After all, our Sun is but one of trillions and trillions of stars in the known universe. So - accident or not, if the laws of physics are such that under the right circumstances, life can occur - then I think it is highly likely that it has happened elsewhere. But it is the next question which concerns me more.

Is there "intelligent" life and will we ever discover it? (I'll refrain from the judgement of "intelligent" life on our own planet.) Provided life exists at all on other planets - the question of intelligent life really only depends on "time". If we accept that evolution would have to follow the same principles on other planets - it is reasonable to believe that intelligent life would eventually arise given enough time. In the case of the earth it took about 2 billion years. But unfortunately - there are some extenuating circumstances to consider, namely that all discernible life on earth has been destroyed approximately 4 times in its history (this includes the extinction of the dinosaurs). Now obviously all life wasn't destroyed - but one would certainly have to expect that this greatly impacted the rate at which we, as a species, evolved. Had the dinosaurs not been wiped out 64 million years ago, there might still be no humans on our planet - yet. So if other planets did not have similar circumstances - intelligent life may have evolved much sooner. And of course, if other planets did have similar circumstances - intelligent life might still have been thwarted. But for the sake of argument we will suppose that it takes roughly 4 billion years (rough estimate of the age of Earth) to produce discernible "intelligent" life.

The universe was roughly 10 billion years old before the Earth even began to form from the remains of a second generation star which had exploded. It is reasonable to believe that a life sustaining planet would have been much less likely to form from younger stars simply due to the lack of heavy materials produced by successive stars. But that said, the life of a star is not a perfectly determinable number - meaning every star does not have a known life span; they can vary by millions of years. So, again, it is reasonable to expect there were planets capable of sustaining life being formed millions of years before our own. And it goes without saying that similar planets are just beginning to form in other parts of the universe. So being conservative - if we look at the life span of the human species over the last 5 billion years - we are barely even a blink of an eye. And unless we can find a way to prevent both man made catastrophes as well as natural catastrophes - we will never be more than a blink of an eye. No matter how long we manage to live, the earth will one day be subjected to natural forces which render life impossible for our species. Life on any other planet should be no different.

So...Can we expect to ever find "intelligent" life on another planet? My opinion is no. As long as we (and any other planetary race) is confined to their home planet, the likelihood of discovering intelligent life on another planet is simply astronomical (pun intended). However, if we and other civilizations live long enough to manage to send sustainable life beyond our home planet and are able to travel at near light speed - then I think the odds could get much better. But I think the greater likelihood is that we will discover a planet which has either A) little more than single celled microbes or B) a "dead" planet which did once have intelligent life forms (or any type of life for that matter). And the same goes for future races who might stumble upon our planet long after we are dead and gone.

The prospect of finding intelligent beings on other planets is both awesome and frightening. On the one hand, virtually nothing else could unite all humanity like the hatred and distrust of another race entirely. And on the other hand, human history teaches us that the meeting of these 2 races isn't likely to be entirely peaceful. But who knows what the universe has in store for us?

Then again, I could be completely wrong...