I am afraid to be alive all the time.
I am afraid.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Theory
I would prefer to treat this as a conversation rather than a dictation or attempt to imply the assumption of fact/correctness within this paper. I will also not be referencing any outside sources or other prominent scholars on this subject because I believe that I stumbled upon this without any prior knowledge or training. This of course does not increase the credibility of this conversation but only makes it more easily understood and much of the time the simple things hold more truth than the complex.
As with all advances we must begin with a question, the inherent necessity for growth and further exploration. The question: Would you consider yourself to have a free will capable of choice and therefore capable of producing a desired change on your environment or person?
Now, not to trap you, but I am going to say right here that you most likely answered this question (perhaps laughingly) but untruthfully "No." because you would naturally assume that this question is a trick question and therefore answer the opposite of what you believe. And in doing so, you were correct, this was meant to be a trick question but perhaps not in the sense you might expect. I am going to first state that I do not believe in the existence of a perceived 'free will' and the fact that I could predict your response to such a simple question--in essence predicting the future-- could perhaps serve as a proof for this theory. A theory known today by the names of fatalism, determinism, and compatibilist predestination. Though only one of these theories, though highly similar in their inherent beliefs, I would argue is correct, specifically the vague definition that fatalism relies upon.
Fatalism: is a philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination.
The essential question and the differentiating question between the three being: Is the future dependent upon causality and action? For a determinist the answer to this question would be yes, the future is clearly dependent upon causality and circumstance because if the past were different the future would too assuringly be different. As for my theory, bearing the given name fatalism, the answer to this question is either no or completely irrelevant for there is no room for other possible pasts, presents, or futures--there is only one. There are of course many similar arguments that relate to this very stance, one of which is theological fatalism.
Theological fatalism relies upon this argument:
1. God is omniscient.
2. Since God is omniscient, God has infallible foreknowledge.
3. If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you must invariably engage in event X.
4. You must invariably engage in event X.
Though I am not going to try to pursue such a large realm of faith dependent determinism, nor am I going to try to prove the existence of a God or a creator. These things have clearly throughout time not been provable or inherent disprovable, but for the sake of this argument they will not be considered relevant. Since no prominent proof exists for the sanctioning of God or creator as fact, they will be considered to be non-existant or at least non-circumstancial to my argument.
Let us begin on perhaps a simple question to get the ball rolling so as to not emerge you too quickly, which usually results in non-acceptance because of the human tendency to reject ideals that are not their own. So we will start with an ideal that is commonly held and the answer should be easily found. Would you consider any animal, lets take your dog or cat (or any other pet) as an example, to have a 'free will'? The clear answer should be and is "No." Clearly animals are products of their environments and their natural instincts that have been researched for generations. The fact that some animals have inherent knowledge of their breeding grounds, diet, habitat, hunting styles, and even migration patterns without any prior knowledge should be considered as substantial proof of this assumed answer. And now the more difficult question presents itself: Would you consider a human to be any different than any other animal, which we just said clearly has no free will?
The natural response, the predictable response, to this question is "Yes, humans are clearly different. We have the ability to gather knowledge and have free will." Now, I am going to say that this inherent assumption that we are some how better or more important than any other animal is apart of our nature, which is why it is clearly apparent in most major religions. Through my study of biological on both the macro and micro levels I have found this belief to be unsubstantiated.
And to prove this claim I will start with a simple observation, let's take spider's silk for an example. Spider can produce a thread that pound for pound is 5 times stronger than any material current produced by man. This talent/ability to create this fiber is something out of reach (perhaps not even for very long) of man, just as our ability to think and retain memory is out of reach for the spider. I would like to argue that the spiders silk is equally or perhaps more important that our ability to think (our advanced mind). Insects clearly out number man billions to one and therefore have a much higher likelihood to reproduce and survive. However, the 'talent' of man has clearly had the largest impact on this world and has decimated many other organism to extinct (as apart of the natural order of life or survival of the fittest).
We, humans, just happened to get one of the best 'talents or natural ability' but this does not mean that we are any better than the animals that surround us... nor does it mean that we have some how developed a 'free will'. Though the illusion of a 'choice' is obviously more probably with the increased intelligence or perceptual awareness. But in the end this illusion will remain an illusion as display by the next segment of this argument.
Now, I am going to branch off into more of a scientific perspective which I claim can be used to justify the 'free will' perception as an illusion. Let us first dive into the world of genetics first. Genetics, a still relatively recent discovery and a field that has much growing left to do to become anything recognizable as a real since, is the fundamental compound of all life as we know it. There is not a signal organism, not even viruses which are none living entities, that does not rely on a highly complicated genetic code to live and to die. Within our genetic code is every single piece of information, every single pattern and code, that makes us who we are. This genetic code can be analyzed, even with today's technology, allowing scientists to predict your likelihood towards violent behavior, alcoholism, cancer (highly specific), genetic offspring abnormalities, and even your height or hair color. Taking into consideration that this is still a 'new' science the possibilities for prediction of phenotypes (in all aspects of human behavior) should be possibly in even the near future.Going back to the original questions and keeping this information in mind it should be relatively clear that 'free will' is an illusion. If your behavior is predictable based upon your genetic code, how can one claim to have a perceived control over their behavior?
Lets take a more general example of this, specifically alcoholism. Alcoholism has been clearly shown to run in family lines and the probability has been shown with an extremely high correlation to genetic factors. I would say it can be reasonably assumed that no one consciously chooses to be an alcoholic taking into consideration the health and social detriments caused by such an addiction. Now, previously I have heavily focus on the nature side of the nature vs. nurture argument and here is where I stem out to the other side of that argument, the nurture side. All organisms are non-static because clearly adaptation to a creatures environment (or the ability to do so) is beneficial towards survival. Just because you are genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic does not necessarily mean you are going to become one, but you have to be presented with a specific situation for that to happen. The specific social climate, social standing, and all other aspects of your environment (especially when you are first born) has nothing to do with a choice or a decision.
The first five years of you life (which most would agree little 'free will' exists in the first place) have been clearly shown to have drastic and long term effects on behavior long into adulthood. And although this is a highly vague claim, I am going to purpose that all human actions are, if generally, concerned with managing or minimizing stress. Stress significantly reduces the life span and therefore it is a prime priority of the mind and body to minimize the damage done by such stressors, which is why the body comes equipped with an entire side of the nervous system to support this. Alcoholics become so do to both predisposition and the illusion of relieved stress on their lives. The only reason why an alcoholic ever changes there ways is do to a situational change that makes being an alcoholic more stressful than not being one and has little to do with free will, which should account for the high rate of relapse. The reason Alcoholics Anonymous is so successful is because of the community based atmosphere which holds every member accountable for his or her actions with the rest of the group. The significant amount of stress that can be wielded by a group mentality has the profound ability to suppress addictions. I believe this observation clearly supports the argument for the non-existence of a 'free will'. If there was such thing as a 'free will' addicts would not become addicts and would be only acting upon a desire so long as they actually desired to. I'm sure no man would desire to be a crack addict if he/she had a free will or choice over the matter.
Taking both of these arguments or observations of genetics and addiction into consideration a clear cycle can be and should be produced which is a self sustaining and regulating system: Nature creates Nurture which then effects Nature and the cycle just then repeats itself. This is just taking into consideration the everyday life of a human being, which in comparison to the massive size of our universe is relatively insignificant though is important in the fact that it can be used as a understandable model. Since you have no control over your genetics or the society you are apart of or born into, you will and can never control your nature or have a 'free will or conscious choice' and everything you do, say, or even dream is purely a reaction to a given set of stimuli (taking into consideration knowledge) or situation. Or in the monumental words of Newton, for ever actions there is an equal and opposite reaction.
To be continued...
As with all advances we must begin with a question, the inherent necessity for growth and further exploration. The question: Would you consider yourself to have a free will capable of choice and therefore capable of producing a desired change on your environment or person?
Now, not to trap you, but I am going to say right here that you most likely answered this question (perhaps laughingly) but untruthfully "No." because you would naturally assume that this question is a trick question and therefore answer the opposite of what you believe. And in doing so, you were correct, this was meant to be a trick question but perhaps not in the sense you might expect. I am going to first state that I do not believe in the existence of a perceived 'free will' and the fact that I could predict your response to such a simple question--in essence predicting the future-- could perhaps serve as a proof for this theory. A theory known today by the names of fatalism, determinism, and compatibilist predestination. Though only one of these theories, though highly similar in their inherent beliefs, I would argue is correct, specifically the vague definition that fatalism relies upon.
Fatalism: is a philosophical doctrine emphasizing the subjugation of all events or actions to fate or inevitable predetermination.
The essential question and the differentiating question between the three being: Is the future dependent upon causality and action? For a determinist the answer to this question would be yes, the future is clearly dependent upon causality and circumstance because if the past were different the future would too assuringly be different. As for my theory, bearing the given name fatalism, the answer to this question is either no or completely irrelevant for there is no room for other possible pasts, presents, or futures--there is only one. There are of course many similar arguments that relate to this very stance, one of which is theological fatalism.
Theological fatalism relies upon this argument:
1. God is omniscient.
2. Since God is omniscient, God has infallible foreknowledge.
3. If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you must invariably engage in event X.
4. You must invariably engage in event X.
Though I am not going to try to pursue such a large realm of faith dependent determinism, nor am I going to try to prove the existence of a God or a creator. These things have clearly throughout time not been provable or inherent disprovable, but for the sake of this argument they will not be considered relevant. Since no prominent proof exists for the sanctioning of God or creator as fact, they will be considered to be non-existant or at least non-circumstancial to my argument.
Let us begin on perhaps a simple question to get the ball rolling so as to not emerge you too quickly, which usually results in non-acceptance because of the human tendency to reject ideals that are not their own. So we will start with an ideal that is commonly held and the answer should be easily found. Would you consider any animal, lets take your dog or cat (or any other pet) as an example, to have a 'free will'? The clear answer should be and is "No." Clearly animals are products of their environments and their natural instincts that have been researched for generations. The fact that some animals have inherent knowledge of their breeding grounds, diet, habitat, hunting styles, and even migration patterns without any prior knowledge should be considered as substantial proof of this assumed answer. And now the more difficult question presents itself: Would you consider a human to be any different than any other animal, which we just said clearly has no free will?
The natural response, the predictable response, to this question is "Yes, humans are clearly different. We have the ability to gather knowledge and have free will." Now, I am going to say that this inherent assumption that we are some how better or more important than any other animal is apart of our nature, which is why it is clearly apparent in most major religions. Through my study of biological on both the macro and micro levels I have found this belief to be unsubstantiated.
And to prove this claim I will start with a simple observation, let's take spider's silk for an example. Spider can produce a thread that pound for pound is 5 times stronger than any material current produced by man. This talent/ability to create this fiber is something out of reach (perhaps not even for very long) of man, just as our ability to think and retain memory is out of reach for the spider. I would like to argue that the spiders silk is equally or perhaps more important that our ability to think (our advanced mind). Insects clearly out number man billions to one and therefore have a much higher likelihood to reproduce and survive. However, the 'talent' of man has clearly had the largest impact on this world and has decimated many other organism to extinct (as apart of the natural order of life or survival of the fittest).
We, humans, just happened to get one of the best 'talents or natural ability' but this does not mean that we are any better than the animals that surround us... nor does it mean that we have some how developed a 'free will'. Though the illusion of a 'choice' is obviously more probably with the increased intelligence or perceptual awareness. But in the end this illusion will remain an illusion as display by the next segment of this argument.
Now, I am going to branch off into more of a scientific perspective which I claim can be used to justify the 'free will' perception as an illusion. Let us first dive into the world of genetics first. Genetics, a still relatively recent discovery and a field that has much growing left to do to become anything recognizable as a real since, is the fundamental compound of all life as we know it. There is not a signal organism, not even viruses which are none living entities, that does not rely on a highly complicated genetic code to live and to die. Within our genetic code is every single piece of information, every single pattern and code, that makes us who we are. This genetic code can be analyzed, even with today's technology, allowing scientists to predict your likelihood towards violent behavior, alcoholism, cancer (highly specific), genetic offspring abnormalities, and even your height or hair color. Taking into consideration that this is still a 'new' science the possibilities for prediction of phenotypes (in all aspects of human behavior) should be possibly in even the near future.Going back to the original questions and keeping this information in mind it should be relatively clear that 'free will' is an illusion. If your behavior is predictable based upon your genetic code, how can one claim to have a perceived control over their behavior?
Lets take a more general example of this, specifically alcoholism. Alcoholism has been clearly shown to run in family lines and the probability has been shown with an extremely high correlation to genetic factors. I would say it can be reasonably assumed that no one consciously chooses to be an alcoholic taking into consideration the health and social detriments caused by such an addiction. Now, previously I have heavily focus on the nature side of the nature vs. nurture argument and here is where I stem out to the other side of that argument, the nurture side. All organisms are non-static because clearly adaptation to a creatures environment (or the ability to do so) is beneficial towards survival. Just because you are genetically predisposed to be an alcoholic does not necessarily mean you are going to become one, but you have to be presented with a specific situation for that to happen. The specific social climate, social standing, and all other aspects of your environment (especially when you are first born) has nothing to do with a choice or a decision.
The first five years of you life (which most would agree little 'free will' exists in the first place) have been clearly shown to have drastic and long term effects on behavior long into adulthood. And although this is a highly vague claim, I am going to purpose that all human actions are, if generally, concerned with managing or minimizing stress. Stress significantly reduces the life span and therefore it is a prime priority of the mind and body to minimize the damage done by such stressors, which is why the body comes equipped with an entire side of the nervous system to support this. Alcoholics become so do to both predisposition and the illusion of relieved stress on their lives. The only reason why an alcoholic ever changes there ways is do to a situational change that makes being an alcoholic more stressful than not being one and has little to do with free will, which should account for the high rate of relapse. The reason Alcoholics Anonymous is so successful is because of the community based atmosphere which holds every member accountable for his or her actions with the rest of the group. The significant amount of stress that can be wielded by a group mentality has the profound ability to suppress addictions. I believe this observation clearly supports the argument for the non-existence of a 'free will'. If there was such thing as a 'free will' addicts would not become addicts and would be only acting upon a desire so long as they actually desired to. I'm sure no man would desire to be a crack addict if he/she had a free will or choice over the matter.
Taking both of these arguments or observations of genetics and addiction into consideration a clear cycle can be and should be produced which is a self sustaining and regulating system: Nature creates Nurture which then effects Nature and the cycle just then repeats itself. This is just taking into consideration the everyday life of a human being, which in comparison to the massive size of our universe is relatively insignificant though is important in the fact that it can be used as a understandable model. Since you have no control over your genetics or the society you are apart of or born into, you will and can never control your nature or have a 'free will or conscious choice' and everything you do, say, or even dream is purely a reaction to a given set of stimuli (taking into consideration knowledge) or situation. Or in the monumental words of Newton, for ever actions there is an equal and opposite reaction.
To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)