From Ryan Canolty                  Jul 30, 01 08:10:28 PM -0700
To: fuchs@michaelfuchs.org, Chad Poplawski <cpoplawski@yahoo.com>, sc@ewav.com,
        Alexander Heublein <alex@heublein.net>,
        Jeremy Kassis <jfk@stanfordalumni.org>,
        Joe Laltrello <jlaltrel@us.ibm.com>,
        Alison Henry <ali.henry@talk21.com>,
        Hilary Grant <HilaryGrant2001@aol.com>,
        Shawn Tseng <snitch@zonker.stanford.edu>,
        Ryan Fife <theman@followryan.com>
Subject: rooting for the determinism underdog...

Several of the questions addressed in this
ongoing discussion have had their hooks in me for
years.  After chewing on them a bit and
marveling at their fundamental importance,
though, I would often let their vitality fade
from sight and ignore their insistent tugging
upon my sleeve.  So I want to say a word of
thanks, then, to the folks contributing to
this discussion for reviving these questions
for me by exploring them in such an incisive
and focused way.

The influence of genetic factors upon
behavior -- especially ethical behavior --
doesn't grab me as firmly as does inquiring
into the philosophical and practical
consequences of accepting such a view.  As
Michael said, we seem to have a loose
consensus that views "...[m]orality as
strongly genetically influenced, with
cultural negotiation being the final word..."
Given that, what does that imply about the
basis of ethics?  Absolute and pre-given or
relative and relational?  Built into the
system of reality (and rewarded with survival
value) or arbitrary agreed-upon conventions,
a game of moral blackjack?  _Should_ we
prefer one view over the other?  Why?

Deeply related to this in my mind is the free
will / determinism question.  Crashing any
philosophical party it finds, this beast has
been around for literally thousands of years
-- but the evolution of knowledge via science
allows this question to be tackled in some
fresh ways that yield new insights into the
basis of ethics.

The concept or felt-sense of "I/me/mine" is
what ties these two questions together.  In
free will / determinism: I am that which
chooses and decides and acts.  I am not that
which merely happens.  Thus everything that
arises in the field of awareness can be set
upon a scale from 0 (not me) to 1 (definitely
me).  Since rain just falls from the clouds,
the experience of that might rate a 0.05.  A
decision about where to eat tonight, though,
is close to the core of what I identify with
(that which decides) and might get a 0.92.
Since the mind-brain uses this "me / not me"
scale to set up goals, interests, and rules
for action, this leads us straight into the
ethical domain: I choose to act on behalf of
some object in direct proportion to its
membership in the "I/me/mine" set.  If the
ship is sinking and it's either me or the
nearby bowling ball, I'm going to take action
to save myself, not the bowling ball.  If my
son and his dog step in front of a bus and
there is only time to save one, I'll choose
my son.  You can work out payoff tables for
any and all kinds of these situations.  The
insight of evolutionary psychology is that
our actions are based upon payoff matrices
that look at the benefits not to the
organism, but to the genes which we, as
biological survival machines, transport from
one generation to the next.  Evopsych notes
that if the gene is the unit of selection
then our behavior will reflect that fact.

However, Scott and Jeremy point out that this
is where the plot thickens: the situation
becomes more complex once we realize that the
biological survival machines used by genes
have become more and more adaptable, that
basic behavior packages are "trancended and
included" by higher order behavior modules
that augment previous action sets.  Organisms
have more "choice" -- that is, they are less
driven by environmental conditions which fire
off preset action patterns and respond
increasingly to internal states and
representations, to "goals" and "decisions"
which result from more involved information
processing, from applying pattern recognition
circuitry not just to external stimuli but
now to internal stimuli as well.

A couple iterations of this process, a little
recursive cognition, and here we are.  The
soul hanging some artwork in the frontal
lobes and, when the mood strikes, "willing"
freely, regardless of genetic imperatives...

I'm not so sure.  Two things hold me back,
suggesting an alternate view.

First, as Jeremy points out, basic
physio-emotional drives such as hunger --
which clearly issue from genetic imperatives
-- can have subtle (or not so subtle) effects
on the contents of consciousness.  Unseen,
nonconscious goals and interests are likely
nudging your conscious focus, influencing
what you experience without you realizing it.
In that case, when using our "higher mind,"
we don't so much hit the "override" button as
achieve genetic imperatives more gracefully.
In this case, complexity opens up the playing
field for other games, such as the meme game
or the aesthetics game to be played
simultaneously with and on top of the gene
game.  There is no problem as long as the
second game is not in direct opposition to
the first and more fundamental game.  It's
like building a second floor to a house.  It
rests upon the first floor, and if you want
to you can cannibalize some materials from
the first floor to build the second, but if
you mess with the primary structures too much
then the whole thing comes crashing down.

Second, and much more devastating to any case
for free will, is the fact that physics is so
damn good at explaining what happens in the
world.  Even if some fancy brain modules
completely oblivious to genetic influence are
directing all our actions, when we examine
the fundamental particles that make up those
neurons and neural nets we find them to be
perfectly described by particle physics.
Granted, there are a hell of a lot of
protons, neutrons, and electrons flying
around, but pick any one at random and you
find its current state to be a function of
its previous state a moment before and the
sum of the forces acting upon it.  Looking at
large groups of particles and talking about
emergent properties is a _perceptual_ shift,
a different way of _describing_ the same
event, not the discovery of new laws or
principles.  The fact that 10^31 particles
are interacting doesn't allow a particular
electron to throw off the shackles of
causation.  Neither do quantum mechanical
dice.  As physical organisms, we are embedded
in networks of physical causation.  Trapped
in the universe, imprisoned by reality...

Shackles?  Trapped?  Imprisoned?  Why such
negative spin?  Why defend free will so
ferociously?  What is there to fear in the
alternative?  What do we lose?  What do we
gain?  If determinism is true, then it has
always been true.  Its not like I'm throwing
a switch and now I watch helplessly as I run
through my preset course in life, a muppet in
the galactic variety show.  If I am
determined, then I am determined through and
through, and even my most conscious decisions
or rational deliberations are determined just
as much as the course of a pool ball once
struck.  Complexity allows systems to better
approximate "perfect" rationality, but in no
way affects their fully determined nature.
Decisions happen just like "external events"
happen, as a function of physical causes and
conditions.  The brain thinks in the same way
that the heart beats and the liver filters,
on its own without an "I" making it happen,
doing it.  Of itself so.  Alan Watts used to
talk about this so beautifully, in a way not
depressing but fully uplifting, noting that
the universe "peoples" in the same way that
an apple tree "apples."  We, as humans, are a
function and action of the universe.  But not
in some special, anthropomorphic way.  The
universe "stars," "planets," "sea turtles,"
and "ashtrays" in the same way, exploring
every direction via evolution, the
differential survival of replicating units.
Thus it is true, as Michael says, that Darwin
found God -- although I might say that he
found the Tao since evolution "...flows
everywhere, to the left and to the right.
All things depend upon it to exist, and it
does not abandon them.  To its
accomplishments it lays no claim.  It loves
and nourishes all things, but does not lord
it over them..." Evolution, like the Tao, is
most definitely not omniscient but rather
operates via blind, unknowing action, in the
dark.

If we wholeheartedly accept determinism, what
changes?  Well, one of the first things to
shift is the sense of "I/me/mine" upon which
all our actions are based.  If all that I
experience is happening of itself so,
decisions happening like falling water
happens, then the whole basis for thinking of
myself as an independent agent, a source of
action, comes under fire.  The idea that I am
this physical organism, this bodymind, rather
than that organism, or even the environment
in which they find themselves no longer has
as much support.  Sure, "I" experience things
from a certain perspective due to the
location of my sense organs, but just because
my left hand feels an apple, does that mean
that I _am_ my left hand vice my right?
Rather than thinking of your "self" as just
the physical organism, perhaps it would be
more accurate to think of yourself as the
complete organism/environment field -- that
is, reality as such.  You are reality, the
entire universe, not any particular isolated
part of it -- and the laws of physics, far
from constraining you, simply describe the
spontaneous actions which you, as reality,
engage in.  Freely.  Check it out -- use
determinism to show that the organism or
bodymind has no free will.  But by negating
free will, you have negated the idea of a
separate self to be constrained or
determined.  Thus determinism is negated as
well, for what is it that is being determined
if there is no other option?  What is left is
reality as such, doing its thing, and its
actions, properly speaking, are neither free
nor determined.

Far out?  Yes.  But note that virtually every
major religion (despite what other baggage
and spookery each may bring) comes to this
conclusion and provides a set of practices to
engage in that make this realization more
likely, not as a belief but as an experience.
Like practicing the piano: "do this
meditation every day.  Focus on the complete
interpenetration of causes and conditions, of
one thing with another.  Note that the
Witness of thought is not itself an object in
the field of awareness."  These are all
tricks, actions you can take to disengage the
differential sense of self, the sense that
you are this and not that.  After practicing
long enough, you feel yourself to be all of
reality.  That is, that differential sense of
self, the 0-1 scale, is gone.  And there is
no contradiction here between prescribing
certain actions and complete determinism: one
part of the completely determined system is
shuttling information (advice, "do this...")
to another part of the completely determined
system, and this information can play a
causal role.  There is just no independent
"self" deciding whether to follow the advice
or not.  The advice impinges upon the
information processing system and provokes a
response, billiard ball style.  Now, it's an
open question whether this is a more accurate
view of reality.  Self as reality-as-such
vice self as separate organism or gene
complex may be progress, conscious evolution
correcting the local maximum that unconscious
evolution found.  Or it may be just another
mistaken delusion, with nondual meditation
playing a role similar to the kamakaze pep
rallies, getting people all worked up and
acting against their best interest.  It is
quite slippery, for if this meditation
practice works, it is not clear just what
exactly is someones best interest.  But it is
a practice that will clearly affect behavior.

And does this affect ethics?  You bet.
Imagine playing the prisoner's dilemma now.
Your mind-brain is working with a different
representation of self than before -- you see
yourself as both prisoners, even though you
only experience the perspective of one.  You
realize that the two organisms are like the
left and right hands of a larger body, and
seek to maximize the net benefit.  You have
expanded your circle of concern to include
everyone and everything, while realizing that
your circle of influence still falls only
around this particular bodymind.  Just as I
can't consciously control the beating of my
heart, but it is still part of me, the fact
that I can't make the sun shine on cue or
make the flower bloom doesn't influence the
fact that they are as much a part of
"I/me/mine" as my most conscious thoughts and
actions.  This is the logical conclusion to
the expansion of moral span that is the basis
of ethical development from egocentric to
sociocentric to worldcentric.

Personally, I like this vision of reality.
Many people find it cold and unappealing,
though, and I can understand where they are
coming from.  I think it is vital to point
out that what we consider key aspect to being
human, such as love, beauty, meaning, are in
no way cheapened or negated or "explained
away" by determinism.  I think this view adds
a certain transient poignancy to experience.
To quote Watts again, it is simply to note
that "sitting quietly, doing nothing,/ Spring
comes, and the grass grows by itself."

=====
Ryan Thomas Canolty