Choice part two

What is a choice? If someone grabs me and forces me to turn to the left instead of the right, was this a free decision? Most people would say no. But if all the atoms which make up “me” (and those around me) have no choices, according to physical laws, then do I still have a free choice as to which direction I turn? Or am I pre-determined to turn a specific way, and then I experience an illusion when I feel that I am choosing?

I didn’t choose my genetics, my parents, the location of my childhood, the beliefs I was taught, etc. etc. Most of the factors which make up my will were not chosen by me - (I wasn’t really around when those choices were made!) So what does this say about the origination of the thoughts, feelings and traits which make up me?

If I choose to stand up and turn to the right, what was the origination of this decision? Was it POOF! out of nowhere? Let’s imagine that it was. Does this fact make me feel that I had more of a choice in the matter? No. That just sounds random, as if I flipped a coin. (did the coin, or the environment, or both, make a choice as to which side landed up?)

So is my choice the result of thought-out reasons? Or feelings? If so, yet again, what was their origin? If I say that the origin of my reasoning is a desire for truth, where did the desire for truth come from? Is it fair to say that my choice is pre-determined by my reasons? And those reasons were pre-determined by others factors, and on and on?

Perhaps all of reality is a constant state of evolving relationship. So an interesting question is “What is the self in all this?”

Some people argue that ultimately there is no self. Perhaps this is true in a sense. I am not something that is completely separate from everything else. Yet, it’s also true that a small bundle of subjective experience, that is me, exists.

I think that perhaps one way to describe what I am is as a kind of meeting place, a lightning rod, for certain causes of the universe to express themselves. Causes inside and outside of me come together and create an outcome which can be described as my decision. This is not to say that all the causes are pre-determined, however. There are many factors which may be indeterminate - fundamental aspects of reality which are unpredictable, no matter how much we know in advance about all the relevant conditions.

So now that there is a little context of what self might be - back to choice. What is the difference between my decision to turn to the right or to the left, and say, an electron’s “decision” to bounce right or left? Or another subatomic particle’s decision to pop in and out of existence? Or the wind’s decision to blow from the North East? Or the universe’s decision to evolve itself slowly in the direction of turning parts of itself into self-reflective life forms? I am not sure.

If we say it was all predetermined by initial conditions, then all things are inevitable (of course, where did the “initial conditions” come from? -but I’ll leave that for now). Choice and self-reflection are illusory, and really they serve no functional purpose at all. If a machine is going to move in one direction no matter what, why does the ability to contemplate different choices need to exist? Why does self-reflective consciousness need to exist at all? It doesn’t make sense.

If there are certain unpredictable aspects to reality, then how does this help things? Is consciousness and true possibility - true choice - dependent on indeterminate aspects of quantum reality? How does this contribute to a free choice, if there is no discernible reason behind any of it? Does an electron indeterminately bouncing right instead of left create more freedom? More choice? Of course if pre-determined atoms can magically create the emergence of unpredictable choice-making, then why couldn’t indeterminate atoms do the same?

But what if choice itself is a fundamental aspect of reality? What if, in some way, all the universe is gradually choosing and finding what it wants to be? Does this mean that anything is possible at any time? No. I am one infinitesimally small part of the universe. I am bound by my relationship to all of physical reality. I have a small parameter of free choice. I can turn to the right or left, but I can’t jump up and out of the atmosphere. The rest of the universe has chosen that I cannot do this!

If this is true, then it makes sense that choice looks a bit paradoxical from our perspective. We are inside the universe doing the choosing - there is no outside measuring stick to compare ourselves against, nothing by which to ultimately judge our methods and progress. If the universe is gradually finding its way, and some degree of freedom, choice and possibility are fundamental to reality, then it will probably look a bit confusing. If it’s all pre-determined, then our self-reflection and our sense of subjective experience is functionally irrelevant. If it’s not determined, then how do certain unpredictable events contribute to a true sense of choice?

So back to me, sitting in my chair, deciding whether to turn to the right or to the left. What would a free choice look like to an observer?

Perhaps it would look like a situation whose results cannot be completely predicted but which will fall within the bounds of physical and logical possibility. And this includes a lot of aspects of the universe besides humans.

Another debate on the Resurrection

I highly recommend listening to the closing statements by Marcus Borg and William Lane Craig in this "debate". The quotes around debate are because Craig approaches this as a traditional philosophical debate, whereas Borg adopts a less argumentative, more pastor-ly tone. I think liberal Christians will be happy with Borg's closing statement and conservatives will probably be happy with Craig's. The whole discussion is pretty interesting, but in the interest of time you can get most of the point from the two five minute closing statements.

Check it out here.

If you like that, then definitely check out the closing remarks of the Bill Craig/John Shelby Spong debate, which I wrote about here.

Daoism, Christianity, God and No-thing

These are excerpts from two thinkers considering the nature of something and nothing. The first is a mathematical physicist who loves storytelling and describes the universe more in terms of organism than of machine. The second is a Catholic theologian at Georgetown University who has authored many books attempting to reconcile evolution with religion. This is taken from an interview, so please forgive the grammatically scattershot transcription. The last excerpt is the 11th stanza from the Tao Te Ching. It is something else to ponder.

“Remember how elementary particles spontaneously erupt out of no-thing-ness, the ultimate realm of generation? Emptiness is permeated with the urgency to leap forth. The difficulty is with language: when we say emptiness, we fail to evoke any sense of awe for the truth of the matter.

We can use another word: the ground of being is generosity. The ultimate source of all that is, the support and well of being, is Ultimate Generosity. All being comes forth and shines, glimmers and glistens, because the root reality of the universe is generosity of being. That’s why the ground of being is empty: every thing has been given over to the universe; all existence has been given over to the universe; all existence has been poured forth; all being has gushed forth because Ultimate Generosity retains no thing.”

- Brian Swimme from The Universe is a Green Dragon

“....I'm talking about philosophical Daoism such as you find in the famous classic the Dao De Jing by the famous philosopher Laozi and according to the philosophy of Daoism ultimate reality -- called the Dao -- is humble, is unobtrusive, is not prominent, doesn't stick out but precisely because of that humility of ultimate reality it allows the rest of nature to emerge, and perhaps the best example given by the Dao De Jing is to imagine a circle, a wheel with spokes converging from a center and that center geometrically speaking is essentially nothing but yet this nothingness generates a wheel. Or think of the emptiness of a window which allows light to come in. It's this insight the Daoist philosophy had that that which is most effective is also the most unobtrusive, and they have the notion of the way which simply can be translated as effective non-interference so that which is most effective, most foundational to reality, is not going to be found among the object of ordinary experience, and I correlate this with the Christian notion of the humility of God and that's one of the themes that perhaps you found perhaps a bit strange. It's not one that you you might have grown up with and that many people have not grown up with in their religious experience but yet a case can be made and has been made by contemporary theology that this is the most characteristic feature of the God of Christianity, and the classic text for this is St. Paul's letter to the Philippines in which he puts an early Christian hymn which says Christ was in the form of God but did not want to cling to that status but emptied himself and took on the form of a slave and subsequent theological reflection has taken that to mean that ultimate reality is self-emptying, self-humbling reality and that fits nicely the new understanding of all the universe because a humble God would would not overwhelm the world, would not stick out prominently as one object among others which religion often looks for, and we're disappointed because we don't find that type of God. We find very unavailable that kind of God but the unavailability of God is a correlate of the fact that we find a universe which is constantly striving to become itself, that's how I understand from a religious point of view this is what evolution is about. Even the expanding universe that we live in as Penberg pointed out can be interpreted theologically as consonant with the theme of a God who lets the world become itself. God wills the independence of the world. And this is kind of like the God of Daoism or the ultimate reality.”

• John Haught, in an interview with Robert Wright. The full interview and many, many more from Wright's Meaning of Life series are here

And finally, a translation by S. Mitchell of stanza 11 from the Tao Te Ching by Lao-tzu:

“We join spokes together in a wheel,

but it is the center hole

that makes the wagon move.

We shape clay into a pot,

but it is the emptiness inside

that holds whatever we want.

We hammer wood for a house,

but it is the inner space

that makes it livable.

We work with being,

but non-being is what we use.”

Tea Parties, Health Care and Freedom

The modern day “Tea Party” movement is not modeling itself on the right rebellion. Patriots in Boston, throwing British tea overboard, rallied themselves around the cause of “No taxation without representation.” Fair enough.

Tea party revelers have representation today. They may disagree with many of their representatives’ decisions, but they are free to express themselves at the ballot box. They are also free to gather together and protest, which is a very American thing to do, but to draw inspiration from the Boston Tea Party - a response to a truly unfair situation - rings hollow.

Another recent “assault” on freedom is the new health care bill. It requires Americans to purchase health insurance. I will readily admit that this is a necessary evil. Government coercion always is. Stopping at red lights and paying taxes are also necessary evils, but they are the price we pay for civilization. We trade in some of our freedoms to realize other freedoms.

Requiring health insurance for citizens makes sense. How can we expect the health care system to work when tens of millions either can’t afford insurance or decide not to carry it? When they get sick, hospital emergency rooms are required by law to treat them. And when the hospital is not paid, the price goes up for everyone. As Mit Romney said during the 2008 election (paraphrase) - “We already have universal health care - but not everyone is paying for it.” And without encouraging preventative care and regular check-ups, many people wait until they are really, really sick to seek treatment. This isn’t smart - it’s a waste of human life both for the sick and for those who have to pay for it.

As long as hospital ER’s are required to treat people, regardless of their financial circumstances, then we all must contribute. If we had a single payer system our required “insurance” would be paid through taxes, but private insurance is the way of the land, and that is fine.

Does this infringe on our freedom? In some ways yes it does. We are being required to provide for our own health care by purchasing insurance. But there are other possible assaults on freedom. How free is someone when she is sick, or her children are sick, and she cannot afford a doctor? How free is a person waiting until he is sick enough to go to the ER, rather than making a doctor appointment weeks earlier? How free is the middle class person whose medical bills include the cost of all the free treatments provided by hospitals? How free is a person stuck in a dead end job that she hates because she needs the insurance for her family? How free is the man with asthma who cannot purchase health insurance on his own, so he gives up on his entrepreneurial dream and takes a job with a corporation large enough to insure him? How free is a person in physical pain, who doesn’t know what to do about it?

Can government go too far attempting to provide for its citizens? Of course. But we are not talking about cars, cell phones, or even housing here. We are talking about whether we should systematically do all we can to provide health care to our citizens - to ourselves and to our neighbors. The only other commodity as valuable is education, and we pay our property taxes to educate society. To not do this would be to effectively brainwash children. If we have the ability to provide education and health care to our citizens we must do it. If we do not, then calling this the land of equal opportunity has zero credibility.

Choice

Our choices are a foundational aspect of life. If I stand up right now, I can either turn to my right or to my left. How could someone predict in advance what I would do?

But I am made up of atoms. Does an atom have any choices to make? It seems kind of ridiculous to ask, but if atoms do not have any choices and everything is predetermined by physical laws, then how do I have any choices? Can a whole bunch of atoms together make a real choice, even though they are individually predetermined by physical laws?

I suppose it seems irrational to say yes. But then again, think of the magical things that relationships create. The sum is greater than the parts, or else the relationship would have no point! Hydrogen is not water. Oxygen is not water. But they come together, along with the right conditions, and they flow over and under the land. Neither could do that alone under the current conditions of the earth.

What about music? I can play a C, and I can play an E. They sound similar - individual tones at different pitch levels. Yet when I play them together, an interval is created - a major third. It has a character that the individual notes absolutely do not have. It's magical. We are not hearing two tones. We are hearing their relationship.

Identity only exists within the context of relationship. I am nothing without you, my family, the earth that I stand on, and even the farthest galaxy. You and I are only here because of this cosmic balancing act.

So yes, perhaps genuine choice can emerge out of atoms without choice. Or do atoms exhibit a kind of choice in their own way? I'll be pondering this question a bit over a few posts.

Temple

Hello! Now that the string piece is completed I look forward to blogging a bit more. Writing can really help with clarifying developing thought patterns, and more importantly, blogging is a really enjoyable way to interact with others.

I just finished watching the incredible HBO movie "Temple Grandin". I encourage everyone to watch it. If you are interested in science, in autism, in focus in the face of adversity, in life itself, then you will enjoy it.

Ms. Grandin was able to use the unique perspective her autism afforded her to really look through the "way things are done" and find a better way, a more humane way, to treat animals in feedlots and slaughterhouses. She is currently a professor at Colorado State, a consultant to the livestock industry and an advocate for those with autism. Here is a link to her Wikipedia page - Temple

Claire Danes is absolutely amazing in the lead role. She is so amazing that I didn't recognize it at first. She is so utterly convincing in her portrayal of Temple Grandin that you forget her efforts and feel as though you are watching the subject directly. Amazing stuff.

Thanks to Susan for keeping after me to watch this movie!

"I think using animals for food is an ethical thing to do, but we've got to do it right. We've got to give those animals a decent life and we've got to give them a painless death. We owe the animal respect." - Temple Grandin

Other quotes from the movie:

"Where did it go?" -Temple on seeing a dead horse. The more you contemplate this question, the more profound and mysterious it becomes.

"Nature is cruel, but we don't have to be. We owe them some respect. I touched the first cow that was being stunned. In a few seconds it was going to be just another piece of beef, but in that moment it was still an individual. It was calm and then it was gone. I became aware of how precious life was..."

Hell and a Loving God? part two

I am happy that Tom Kelley has

taken the conversation on Wade

Burleson's blog in a different, but

still relevant direction.

Tom Kelley said...

Steven Stark said...
3. I come back to this idea. If everyone really understood the situation, then why would anyone reject Christ? It is incoherent - the action of one who is not of sound mind, or of one who does not have all the facts before him.

Steven,
I've enjoyed reading your comments. I appreciate the clarity with which you present your thoughts and the respect you demonstrate to those who have different views. Very refreshing.

Not to get into a lengthy point-by-point response to your comments (though it might be enjoyable to think through these things together), but I do have a thought on your question above. The only way in which I see it as coherent that anyone would choose hell over heaven (assuming they understood the significance of their choice, which is itself an interest point to consider) is if they would genuinely prefer hell. I'm reminded of the words of Lucifer in Milton's Paradise Lost, "It is better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven."

My point is that, strange as it may sound, what if the nature of mankind is so corrupted by sin that our reason and affections are warped in such a way as to make us actually prefer to be separated from God for eternity? After all, if God is exactly as the Bible and Christian theology portrays Him, and that kind of God seems horrible and evil to those who do not know Him, would not those people perhaps actually prefer not to be around Him? Perhaps the most loving thing such a God could do with those who hate how He is and all He stands for would be to allow them to stay as far away from Him as possible.

Just a thought.

Fri Feb 12, 10:10:00 PM 2010

Steven Stark said...

Tom Kelley,

Thanks for the words, I really appreciate them!

I am familiar with the idea that perhaps some people would actually prefer Hell. It's like the idea that everyone actually goes to the same place, only some perceive it as Heaven and some perceive it as Hell. It is interesting, although it does take away from the idea that Hell is punishment.

And the person who prefers Hell, if it is an unpleasant (or sadistically horrible) punishment would be quite delusional.

Of course a Christian Universalist's idea of Hell is that fire and brimstone serve only two purposes - to change and to purify. Once again, punishment is only relevant if it instructs - if it makes better. If there is no hope of this, then punishment is pure sadism.

Given an infinite amount of "time", surely everyone would eventually come to God. And if sinners are truly delusional, then God would surely break those chains.

Sat Feb 13, 01:41:00 AM 2010

Tom Kelley said...

Steven,
I don't know much about the true nature of hell (or heaven), having never been there. :) I do think they are separate places, and that there is a metaphorical aspect to descriptions of hell (such as "fire"), just as there are of heaven ("the street of the city was pure gold, transparent as glass" -- I've yet to see transparent gold, though I remember something called "transparent aluminum" from a Star Trek movie).

But I'm not certain that punishment is always about correction or instruction. We send murderers to jail or to death not to teach or improve them, but to exact retribution. Their punishment is not a matter of making them a better person, but of settling the score, so to speak. That is central to the concept of justice -- that things weigh out.

Also, I'm not so certain that the primary idea of hell is that of punishment, rather it seems to be more about torment. A person can be tormented by feelings of guilt, regret, remorse, hatred, revenge, etc. And a person can be tormented from within like that without desiring to change anything about themselves, but they blame all their problems and feelings on someone else.

Could a person actually prefer hell? I think this goes back to what Wade said about how big a deal sin is. If sin has so utterly corrupted human nature as to make us truly believe that what is in reality evil is good, and what is in reality good is evil, then a person would only be following their nature and ultimate desire to want to be separated from God (which is what hell is ultimately all about). No amount of time would change their true nature, and taking such a person out of hell and placing them in heaven would be to that person a greater torment, and genuinely cruel.

Sat Feb 13, 12:40:00 PM 2010

Steven Stark said...

Tom,

I must differ with you on the view of punishment. While I agree with you that punishment is about retribution, this only makes sense in the context of it being a deterrent.

If a person murdered one close to me, yet I somehow knew that there was absolutely no chance of this person committing the same act again, and I also knew that the "deterrent effect" would have zero impact on other potential murderers, then there is no reason for punishment.

If this violates something in my spirit, as it certainly would, I chalk it up to the human desire for revenge rather than for justice. Justice would be my loved one not having been murdered in the first place. But nothing changes that. And justice is not served by more suffering if there is no benefit to be derived from the suffering.

Now, you might be thinking that there is another desire at play. The desire for the murderer to realize what he has done, to repent, to find remorse. This may be true as well, but this is punishment as instruction, with the hope of change for the better - which an eternal hell would not provide.


I can understand your idea of an "utterly corrupted" human. But if a person prefers suffering to "not suffering", which we see everyday here on earth, because it is in some sense what we are used to, what is comfortable - I associate this with delusion.

I think your idea of "torment" is right on. We all know that feeling in different degrees. But when we experience that, when we blame our problems on someone else, we are delusional. It does not mean we are not accountable - we suffer for our delusions.

But I cannot see it as merciful to leave a lost human to an eternity of delusion, when God would have the power to show the person love and joy, to clear the mind, to show the true nature of reality, to break the spell of the sinful nature.

I want to see (or not see) some transparent aluminum!

very good discussion,

Steven

Sat Feb 13, 04:42:00 PM 2010

Tom Kelley said...

Steven,
Good comments. I guess we'll just have to disagree about punishment -- I think that pure retribution, without regard to correction, is a valid aspect of both punishment and justice.

And sometimes the delusional are quite content with their delusions. :)

Sat Feb 13, 09:02:00 PM 2010

Steven Stark said...

Hi Tom,

"I think that pure retribution, without regard to correction, is a valid aspect of both punishment and justice."

I am curious how you make this work alongside the Christian ideas of forgiveness and mercy.

I think "pure retribution" can only validly exist as a deterrent -in order to keep a society orderly. I am wondering what purpose "pure retribution"serves. It does not correct the initial wrong. If no positive effects are achieved through punishment, then the retribution only adds to the net wrong that has occurred. I guess this is a fancy way of saying "two wrongs don't make a right."

" And sometimes the delusional are quite content with their delusions. :)"

I suppose if you weren't, you wouldn't be delusional. But I agree, that we often choose the path of comfort over the path of greater overall happiness. The question is - if a person is delusional, does he have the power on his own to overcome the delusion? And if not, would a loving parent, or creator who certainly has the power, do something to intervene?

I am going to post our conversation on my blog. I think it is really, really interesting. Thank you again!