The way I see it, we are just computers running algorithms and constantly adapting those algorithms to new environments. When we are first born we have a base hardware determined by genetics which has its own biases. Then as we experience life as a tiny human those biases become a very basic algorithm with very simple, but eventually very ingrained in/out functions. These functions carry into our adulthood and if they aren’t that great, the human will suffer because of it. At best it will take them years to rewrite said functions or create new functions on top of them that directly counteract the bad ones.
As we grow older we keep creating algorithms based on the environment we experience. Those algorithms become increasingly complex and nuanced and are all still predicated on the lower level algorithms we learned in childhood. The only way a person ever learns something or changes their behavior is by experiencing a new environment that satisfies an input of their internal algorithm which then has an output of change, and since the previous algorithms were all created by things outside of the person’s control, so it is true that the decision to change wasn’t really a decision at all but just a function of an algorithm written by a complex interplay of environment and OEM human brain architecture.
What I find important about all of this is that in my opinion, it renders the idea of “good” and “bad” guys as obsolete. As I write this I realize that I just made a post about this very concept last week so hopefully I don’t repeat myself much here. If we’re just a culmination of these algorithms created by the interplay of our genetics and environment, of which both in a very real way are not in our control, how can it be right to label people in such a way? Obviously people do things that we can call “bad” (or rather undesirable) but I think to label the person themselves bad misses this very important concept. If a person has codependency issues and therefore hurts people in relationships but has yet to be presented with the circumstances that would cause their change, how can we really assign fault to them because of this? And before you say, “Well they were presented with a situation that should have changed them but they still didn’t change,” obviously said situation couldn’t have changed them or else it would have; you just have miscalibrated in regards to what input creates what output for that individual person.
I really don’t know how I feel about fault because I’m still trying to wrap my head around the concept of fault given this understanding of reality. It would seem it completely absolves any one person of fault and I think that might actually be closer to the truth of reality compared to the current model of every person is the only one directly responsible for their own actions. Maybe fault in itself is a logical fallacy. Maybe we should look more at people in the same way we look at say… a ball not rolling down a path you wish it to. You don’t yell at the ball or put it in jail to punish it, you just move it to where you want it to go. Of course it’s a lot more complicated with peoples’ actions but one easy example is if our society created better living situations. If we just threw the money that we put into policing and military into standard of living guarantees, crime would absolutely decrease dramatically. As for how to think of oneself under this world model, I don’t really know, I’m still pondering it too. I really am struggling to decide if I believe anything close to a form of free will exists. Can we move our own ball? If so, through what mechanism are we doing so if the only two mechanisms at play are genetics and environment? Maybe the best we can do is experience the illusion of moving our own ball when in reality it was completely outside of our control.
As for what the absence of free will does to the experience of life? I think had we never believed in said concept, it’s absence wouldn’t even be an issue. Is a rollercoaster less fun because you can’t drive it? Sure it’s less scary maybe, but if you never thought you could steer it to begin with then not being able to wouldn’t even be a problem. If life truly is just predetermined by very concrete laws of physics, I think we can still very much thoroughly enjoy it, it’s just a different experience. On top of this, with an absence of freewill, we can drastically change how we address prison systems and each other’s shortcoming in general. Under this understanding, vengeance makes no sense. Just like with the ball earlier, just focus on moving the ball, not whether or not it deserves to suffer because of it’s actions.
Ok, that one seemed like a bit of a rollercoaster of a post for me, kinda like just tying to think on paper. Hopefully it was a fun read. I really wish I had more time to write and that I felt financially stable in doing so. I feel like I could spend a lot more time learning and therefore forming much more informed and nuanced understandings of the world if I were more financially stable doing only this. I think understanding ourselves and one another is as important as love when it comes to making the world a better place. If you agree and would like to help me add to that understanding, I have a donation option on my about page. Much love to you all and I’ll see you next week. ❤
Steven Wilhelm 