04 July 2017

The Illusion of Choice Part Five: The Superstitious Human Experiment

            Welcome back, to the fifth and final entry in my series of everything. At this point I think it is important that we take a look back at the reason I began this series in the first place. This is the illusion of choice. It is a look at whether or not free will truly exists, or are we just simply playing our parts in the script of life. For anyone that persisted through this entire series, it should seem reasonable that choice is just an illusion. Sure, you can change your mind about a decision, but ultimately you were always going to have changed your mind. Now let’s not be confused, we are not so much reading from a script, as no such script exists. Really, we are just matter, behaving in a predictable manner to an interaction, much the way an ice cube will melt when put in a warm environment.
            Remember the theory of everything, the idea that all physical interactions could be explained by a single equation. Remember, that human consciousness is purely a result of our experiences. There are, of course, predisposing factors, such as genetics, but these still are results of the events that culminated in our existence. Factor all of this together, and you will see that anything and everything we do, choose, believe, everything that exists, has existed, or ever will exist, they are all just a result of the events that preceded them. If you can account for all of the variables, and I do mean all variables, it is all predictable. In the end, everything was set in motion from the very beginning. The big bang. That single event set the stage for everything else. We can look back at events and think, if this, then this would have, but really what happened was always going to have happened. Everything in your life, and even before it, led to you quitting your job, or missing the bus, or discovering the cure for cancer.
            This is a difficult concept to grasp, and understandably so. We cannot see the variables at play, and most of them predate our existence. Take our melting ice cube analogy. Of course, we can predict that an ice cube in a warm room will melt. We know the relevant variables, the melting point of ice and the rough temperature of a warm room. But maybe the ice cube doesn’t melt. Maybe there were more variables at play that we didn’t know about. Perhaps the room was under incredibly high pressure preventing the phase change of the water. The end result was still predictable, had we all of the necessary values and equations, but without these, we can only make educated guesses based on what values we do have, or even what trends we have observed in the absence of any quantifiable information.
Let’s expand this to a person deciding whether or not to buy an ice cream cone. This is a much more complicated scenario with many variables. How much does the person like ice cream, how much does the ice cream cost and how much money does the person have, is the person on a diet, did they have a hard day, what is the temperature today, are they alone or with friends, are their friends buying ice cream or not? The list goes on and on. We could attempt to collect every conceivable variable on this person buying ice cream, and with that construct a consistent equation of whether or not this person would buy ice cream under any given situation. But such an esoteric equation would hardly prove useful. What if you owned an ice cream shop, though? You would certainly want to know which factors were strong determiners of a person’s decision to buy ice cream. Variables which do not play a significant role or which cannot be manipulated, such as genetic factors, are of no use to you, but everything else is fair game. Rest assured that any successful business is probably capitalizing on these as we speak. The perfect evidence that choice is merely an effect of influencing factors is how manipulable consumers are.
No one likes to think that they are being manipulated though. Our minds don’t typically work on cause and effect. Humans much prefer purpose based answers. For instance, an experiment done with children, posed questions such as why do have sharp rocks? Is it because the wind blowing on the rocks shaped them, or was it so that animals would have something to scratch their backs on? You can imagine the children mostly chose the purpose based answer. Adults exhibit the same behavior, if to a lesser extent. For instance, snowshoe hares live in snowy environments and have white fur. Why? Most people would say to camouflage themselves from predators. This would be a purpose based answer and would also be incorrect. Hares in snowy climates have white fur because they were able to avoid predation there, and thus flourished. As for why their fur is white, that is purely a genetic factor, likely a result of a genetic mutation.
This brings us to the last topic that we need to cover. That would of course be god. There have been numerous debates over the existence of such a being. These debates are largely fruitless, however, as a being of boundless abilities is immune to logical arguments. Any arguments against a god could be countered as simply, god is capable of anything, and his will is beyond our understanding. As such, the evidence against such a being usually boils down to a lack of evidence for such a being. This is, of course, a backwards way of thinking. Analogous to believing in ghosts because no one has proven that they are not real. As such, arguments against the existence of a god are the wrong approach. Rather one should consider the likeliness of a god being fabricated.
There is a long history of gods of various abilities. I consider this one of the most compelling arguments against such a being’s existence. The gods are not consistent across faiths. They are merely independently created ideas unique to a group, but common in the societal creation of myths. People love to come up with stories and it seems probable that your god, whoever it may be, is no different than anyone else’s. The idea of a god being real is a purpose based explanation for life and the universe, but the idea of humans creating gods is a trend that has shown time and time again. Even pigeons have been shown to be superstitious. Pigeons have been shown, when given food in response to an action, to repeat that action. In one of my all-time favorite psychological experiments, several pigeons were kept in cages that dispensed food at random. The pigeons of course did not know this and began to develop beliefs about what caused the food to come. They would think that whatever action they were doing at the time the food was delivered was the cause, and then repeat that action in the hopes of receiving more food. Humans exhibited the same behavior in response to good crops, medical breakthroughs, and anything else they couldn’t explain at the time.
In light of the question is there a god, I say no. I say, there does not need to be a god for what has happened to have happened, and that the persistence of belief in a god is simply human nature. I also believe that the spread of science will one day eliminate the widespread belief in a god. The fastest growing religious affiliation today, is the nonaffiliated. Religion gave people comfort in the absence of explanations. But we now know more than we could have ever imagined, and are learning at an increasing rate. The ability to pass down information more efficiently has allowed us to build our knowledge base ever faster, and it is only a matter of time before we start finding more and more of the variables that dictate our lives. Whatever may come to pass, though, remember that it was always going to be, because in the end, choice is just an illusion.


-AMS

No comments:

Post a Comment