Category Archives: Philosophy

Why Religion?

Why is religion so pervasive in human societies? Organized religion has been with us since the dawn of civilization. In fact, religion is so common that few societies have existed without it. As far as ideas surviving in human brains (memes) religions are among the most successful. That’s right religions are memes, but they are usually referred to as traditions. They stay in existence because they are ideas that are passed on from person to person and on to the next generation.

In The beginning

How and why did religion begin? For something like religion to arise it requires a highly evolved being. One would assume it requires a large enough brain to formulate abstract ideas, such as: an acute awareness of life and death, a sense of self, language, and the passage of time. That pretty much rules out every other species except humans. It is my contention that as soon as a being is able to pose a question it can’t answer, the raw materials for a religion are present. Although, it does not necessarily mean religion had to come about. The fact that it did is indeed complex. However, I will try to break it down by proposing a lengthy list of possibilities.

  • Fear and Uncertainty – Without a workable understanding of the natural world, imagine what kind of questions our distant ancestors   must have had. Why are we subjected to thunder and lightning? What is behind the force of a hurricane? Why does the Sun set in the horizon? There is perhaps no greater fear than the unknown and the ancients were pretty much left in the dark by their lot in history. Natural occurrences that are now clearly understood were often (and perhaps logically) attributed to the will of gods by our ancestors.
  • Agriculture – At around 9000 BC the rise of agriculture made it possible for civilizations to develop. As humans went from living in small groups of hunter gathers to farming villages, it may have set the stage for organized religion. Farming made humans increasingly vulnerable to the whims of nature. The idea of praying to gods for blessings in a ritualistic setting may well have originated with agriculture. In addition, with large groups of people living in close proximity, it may have been wise to have everyone on the same page (so to speak).
  • Solidarity – We are social beings at heart and there is something to be said for unity. Unlike today in the developed world, in ancient times survival was at the forefront. It likely would have been a survival advantage for a society to share common goals and ideas. A fractured community would have been at a disadvantage in fighting off enemies and acquiring resources. Religion may have been vital in strengthening social bonds and getting people to work for a common cause.
  • Order and Ritual – Life was then and is now a mix of unforeseeable and anticipated events; both can create anxiety and worry. For many people, the belief in something behind the ebb and flow of life provides order for their lives. This sense of order, even though life does not necessarily reflect it, is often reinforced in people’s mind through religious traditions and rituals.  
  • Perseverance – If you think life is hard now (and it is at times) imagine what it must have been like thousands of years ago. Without modern conveniences, the ancients had to work much harder for sustenance. They had no theory of disease, limited medical care and a shorter life expectancy. With a difficult life and the awareness of eventual death, would humans have been able to persevere without religion? Religion may have been a survival advantage, not directly but perhaps indirectly over the long haul.
  • Hope for an Afterlife – The awareness of death is a by-product of a highly evolved brain. We are aware that we will lose everyone we love, unless death overtakes us first; this is a sobering realization. Central to most religions, is the prospect for an afterlife. This idea alone helps religions remain viable for long periods of time. It is very hard to come to terms with the idea that someday we will no longer be. 
  • Agency – We go through everyday life with desires and intentions. We are also aware that other living beings possess them as well. If every animated being we are in contact with (human or non-human) has intentions, we could say they are intentional agents. Nature is also animated, with wind, rain, rivers, vegetation, celestial bodies and much more. In a pre-modern world, was it such a stretch to extend the principle of agency to nature? And if nature was thought to have intentions, it is just one more step to attribute agency to gods, as the force behind nature.
  •   Power and Control- Small groups of people have a way of regulating themselves. If someone is taking advantage of others they can usually be dealt with. However, when small groups grow to become villages, cities and empires, things change. An ugly side of religion is that it has been used (or misused) for controlling people. This is how it works in a nut shell: When populations become too large for self-control, we end up with government and laws. If we break the laws then we are punished. But it is impossible for any regime to police everyone. Religion steps in as an all-encompassing secondary force. If you think you got away with something, then there is an eye in the sky that sees all and in the end you will be held accountable. This is a very powerful force and difficult to eliminate.
  •  Morality- Some people tend to view religion as the de facto origin of morality. However, it is hard to imagine how humans could have evolved to the point of organized religion, without first adherence to social norms. As a matter of fact, other primates exhibit social norms as well. Religions have been successful at converting established social norms into moral codes. As a consequence, religions have mostly presented themselves as moral authorities. The moral dimension of religion, in part accounts for their staying power.
  •   Explanation- Many of the existential questions, which puzzled humankind for centuries, have in large part been address by the scientific enterprise. At present we have access to a beautifully   coherent explanation for how the universe works and how we got here. However, all this knowledge came to us much like a dripping faucet. In the meantime the business of living was at the forefront. For generations religions provided an explanation in the form of origin stories which could be shared with the masses.
  • Meaning- Humans are meaning making beings; we tend to look for meaning in life situations. I suspect that the ancients did not differ in that regard. The religious stories have and still provide meaning for large sections of the population. Today things have changed a bit, in the sense that we now have the scientific story to factor in, as opposed to the largely unchallenged voice of religion. That said, I must admit that the meaning value of the scientific story is incomplete.

Going Forward

One would think that our religions provided some survival advantages along the path of human development, how else can we explain their universality. To clarify, they are ubiquitous in their presence although not necessarily in their message. Some of what I touched upon earlier could very well fall under evolutionary gains, such as solidarity, perseverance, order, and perhaps even meaning. It appears that religions have contributed to civilization in a significant way, but will they continue to do so going forward? Or will something else step in to take its place?

Religion may have been our first attempt at understanding the world and ourselves. One might even say that religion was our first attempt at philosophy, morality, and perhaps science. However, much has changed in the world since religion was in its infancy. For the most part they don’t have the same hold on people as they once did, also we can now look at religion with a wider perspective. We tend to think of religions as being ever-present but they do have life spans. We are all aware of ancient religions and gods that are no longer taken seriously. However, normally religions easily out live their followers.

With the advantage of a lengthy history behind us it is easy to see that religions are universal in their presence but regional and cultural in their message. A look at the demographics for the various world religions points this out; numbers very slightly from different sources but not enough to matter for my purpose here. Also, I have rounded off the numbers for simplicity. This is how they rank globally in percentage of followers:    

  • Christianity 30 %
  • Islam 20 %
  • unaffiliated 16%
  • Hinduism 15%
  • Buddhism 7%
  • others 12%

These figures indicate that in a best case scenario (if you’re a Christian) 70 % of all the people in the world will disagree with you on this matter. And let’s not forget that there is much disagreement amongst numerous Christian denominations. If one falls in any of the other five categories, the disagreement is even greater. Hypothetically, from a visiting alien’s point of view, any given religion would be indistinguishable from the others. In other words, with no cultural bias, it would be difficult to favor one religion over any other.

I suspect that in ancient times, it was far easier to buy into the religion of the day, but perhaps the golden age of religion has past. Not that today’s religions don’t have influence in many pockets of the world; they just aren’t as universal in their appeal. We are not as isolated geographical and far more aware of numerous past dead religions and a variety of current active ones. The religious stories continually change over time and across cultures. Religions stay alive for varying lengths of time in a sort of natural selection of ideas. It may be comforting for believers to think that today’s religions are here to stay, but if history is any indication, the future of religion is not set in stone.

 

References: Dr Michael Shermer | God does NOT exist, OxfordUnion, Published on Dec 21, 2012. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pOI2YvVuuE

Religion – when, why and how did it begin? http://www.garvandwane.com/religion/religion1.html

World Religions – populations pie chart statistics list. http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/mysticism/world_religions_populations.html


 

The Puzzle of Consciousness

consciousnessOur conscious experience is so commonplace that we seldom think about how remarkable it is. How does the mind integrate all the sensory information into one coherent picture? How does it seamlessly update the information from moment to moment? How does the perception of the self emerge? The brain is one of the last frontiers of the scientific endeavor. Much research has been done in identifying different parts of the brain and their functions. Although a large amount of progress has been made in connecting behaviors with specific brain activity, consciousness remains elusive. There is still no well-established scientific theory of consciousness.

What is Consciousness?

On the surface consciousness seems simple enough; it is our subjective and individual experience. My consciousness is different than yours and every person has experiences that are uniquely theirs. Clearly the individual brain is fundamental to consciousness, but when we look into the causes or location of consciousness it becomes ambiguous. Philosophers and scientists alike have tried to explain consciousness and tried to explain why they can’t explain it. Philosopher Dan Dennett calls consciousness “An illusion.” Philosopher and cognitive scientist David Chalmers calls it “The hard problem,” as opposed to “The easy problem,” of explaining behavior.

david-eaglemam

Neuroscientist David Eagleman provides an interesting angle to the puzzle of the mind. Rather than focusing solely on an orderly brain map with clear correlations of cause and effect, he views the brain from a holistic perspective. In an excerpt from This Explains Everything, Eagleman writes:

“It [the brain] possesses multiple, overlapping ways of dealing with the world… It is a representative democracy that functions by competition among parties who all believe they know the right way to solve the problem.”

Eagleman is referring to mental functions, yet the concept can also be applied to consciousness. If I had to make a general comment on consciousness, I would say that, “Consciousness emerges from or is the result of multiple processes of the mind and body.” Still it goes further than that.

Some would say that a part of consciousness resides outside the brain, something like a soul. I would partly agree as we have to account for the world beyond ourselves. Consciousness is an emergent property (greater than the sum of its parts), which also includes the outside world (something to be aware of). In a way, consciousness is non-local, as it is the integration of the brain with the outside world. That being said, I am not going to attempt to explain consciousness. However, I hope I can shed some light by analyzing it further.

Observations, Possibilities and Questions 

  • Can consciousness be explained by physical and chemical means? Some people support a purely material view; what we feel as non-physical is solely the result of physical processes. States of consciousness can easily be altered with the use of drugs, brain injury and deterioration, a clear correlation between physical causes and non-physical experiences. A material explanation only provides a starting point. There is still a lot of work ahead to identify the specific mechanisms that give rise to consciousness.
  •  Does consciousness develop? We can’t assume that consciousness is the same for everyone. For instance, an infant can’t have the same awareness as an adult. And at what point does a newborn become conscious? Does it happen at birth or at some time before in the womb? The fact that a person has no memories before the age of 2 or 3 makes me wonder if an infant is even conscious (at least not fully conscious). Does he/she respond only by instinct? It is well-known that the brain is not fully developed at birth, and maybe consciousness also develops over time (a gradual awakening similar to waking up in the morning).
  •  Life has varying degrees of consciousness. How aware are bacteria or worms, fish or birds, cats or dogs? Life does not necessarily equate to advanced consciousness. You would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks trees and flowers are conscious. There is clearly a progression of consciousness in life. And like anything else consciousness had to evolve, which means primitive life was barely conscious, if conscious at all. As life branched out over long periods of time varying degrees on consciousness emerged.
  • How do thinking, imagination, memory and dreams fit in? These mental functions are different than typical sensory perceptions. But how can we deny their role in consciousness? The mind can think of concepts, imagine pictures, have clear memories and vivid dreams. There are often feelings associated with these mental states. We could call this the abstract mind and it is more mysterious than the perceiving mind. Nonetheless, the abstract mind is a piece of the puzzle of consciousness, and clearly affects our experience.
  • Different parts of the mind compete for your attention. We can’t be fully aware of all the potential conscious aspects of the brain at the same time. If I divide the brain in two parts, the thinking brain and the perceiving brain (for the purpose of explaining), we can see how this works. When we focus on our stream of thoughts, our surrounding environment becomes numbed. By comparison, when we focus our senses on perceiving our environment, thinking subsides. The mind blocks out what it does not focus on; consciousness continuously shifts from one state to another. You can’t think about work, taste your coffee, watch a video and hear background noises all at the same time.
  • Does consciousness do anything? We could imagine a world where all human behavior is automatic, completely controlled by the laws of physics. Those that believe in a deterministic universe (with no room for freewill) should have no problem with this. If determinism is real, our subjective consciousness may just be observing the world. We could be like the actors and audience in a play, experiencing events with no power to affect the outcome.
  • The subconscious does more. Who is driving the car when we are thinking of something else? Of course the subconscious takes over to perform previously learned tasks. This is just a simple example of the multitude of actions our subconscious mind and body do every day. Most of our bodily functions are automatically controlled. It is easy to forget that we are also subconscious beings (more so than conscious beings).
  • Consciousness may be our greatest gift. We often here about the gift of life, but consciousness may be our most valuable gift. Of course we need life to have consciousness, but I suspect that the fear of death (losing one’s life) is really the fear of losing consciousness.  Life without consciousness would have no meaning; we wouldn’t know that anything exists. There is also a downside to consciousness. Just as it allows for feelings of pleasure, it also allows for feelings of pain. I guess that is the price to pay for experiencing the fullness of life. Everything that is worth living for would not be possible without consciousness.

 

References: Edge Foundation, Inc., This Explains Everything (New York: HarerCollins Publishers, 2013), 91.

Waking Up with Sam Harris – The Light of the Mind: A Conversation with David Chalmers, Sam Harris, Published on Apr 18, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi2ok47fFcY

Dan Dennett: The illusion of consciousness, TED, Uploaded on May 3, 2007. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo


 

Living in a Medium-Size World

The human experience is limited by the range of our senses. We can only see, hear, touch, smell and taste so much. Our sensory input is the result of the world directly around us, and that is what we perceive as reality. Humans have evolved to intuitively deal with the medium-size world. Hidden from us are the microscopic realm and the large-scale universe. In addition, we are not well equipped to deal with things moving at light speed and extreme time scales (sometimes called deep time).

universe-telescopeTo a large extent modern science has advanced due to decoding the small-size world and the large-size world. The current picture of the universe is defined by technologies that probe realities beyond the human senses. Scientists have come to the realization that human intuition is deceptive in understanding how the universe works. For example: the behavior of atoms, the formation of stars and galaxies, the speed of light, and the evolutionary timeline. This creates a gap between knowledge and perception, which demands a stretch of imagination to bridge the gap. It may even be wise to expect that new scientific discoveries will be counter-intuitive, just like many significant discoveries from the past.

 Some People Can’t Go There

Why are some people able to digest objective scientific information, while others can’t get beyond their subjective experience? In other words, to expand our world view we need to look outside ourselves. An individual’s life experience is by far too small a sample size to make any meaningful conclusions, particularly when examining some of life’s big questions. There is tremendous variety in life experiences, both in time and geography.

Before modern science the earth was viewed as the center of existence; humans were the focal point of all life and the universe. Now the message is clear that humans occupy a planet that is a tiny part of a much grander scheme. Human life is also a brief existence in an epic evolutionary tale of innumerable life forms. An appreciation of the modern scientific view requires we look beyond our direct experience and consider a reality foreign to ourselves. It is a challenging mental and emotional exercise to honestly look at life from a truly universal perspective.

Albert Einstein was a revolutionary thinker and well-known for his thought experiments. It was by first imagining physical scenarios that he came up with his great insights. He is quoted as saying:

“The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination.” and “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”

A Miss-Match Between Intuition and Reality

If we had to find candidates for the most influential and revolutionary scientific theory of all time, at a minimum the list would include: Newton, Darwin, Einstein and the quantum theory scientists. These three individuals and the group of scientists that formulated quantum theory have created the foundation of modern science. Newton’s ideas describe the physics of our everyday reality. Einstein worked out the precise laws of space, time and the large-scale universe. Quantum physics describes the atomic and subatomic realm. And Darwin’s theory of evolution is the cornerstone for studying all life.

quantum-universeAn interesting angle with these landmark ideas is that they are all counter-intuitive. These theories are defined by hidden realities that required great minds and creative techniques to uncover. It is not clear whether others could have come up with similar discoveries; however, I think that few thought along those lines. In the early years of science, knowledge of the world was limited to the human senses. The idea that to accurately describe our world required a leap beyond the sensory experience of the medium-size world must have been revolutionary. Today, scientists and philosophers have come to accept theories based on evidence, even if it goes against common sense.

Before Newton no one had considered that the same force was responsible for controlling the orbits of the planets and falling objects on earth. Space and time were believed to be absolute and unchanging before Einstein showed that they were flexible. Life was clearly designed by God (each species set apart in its present form) before Darwin unveiled the mechanism of natural selection as a powerful creator. And in several ways quantum theory is the most bizarre of scientific theories; For instance, even those that work with quantum mechanics can’t explain why light behaves as both a particle and a wave.

If these examples are too abstract for you, consider the deceptive everyday observation of the sun traveling across the sky. In medieval times it was thought to be heretical to suggest anything other than the sun moving around a stationary earth. And today, if we go by our senses alone we would reach the same conclusion. The earth moves, it spins and orbits the sun, but we don’t feel it. To take it a step further, if the sun actually orbited the earth, it would still look exactly the same. How many other things about our world do we get wrong by overlooking scientific facts? This could be due to ignorance, oversight, or possibly by over rating subjective experience.

Evolution is the Big One

charles-darwinDarwin clearly knew the implications of his theory of evolution; perhaps that is why he waited a couple of decades to publish. Evolution, properly understood, solved the great mystery of life’s propagation and overthrew centuries of beliefs. In terms of its philosophical implications, evolution is the most life-altering scientific idea. Yet, it is still not universally accepted or understood. If I was only exposed to one scientific idea, I would pick evolution; it has the farthest reach and most deeply influences us.

We don’t need to know how atoms work or how galaxies form to function in everyday life. Common sense and intuition will serve us well enough in most situations. Understanding evolution is debatable; I think it is very valuable in understanding human behavior and how our lives unfold (not to mention the natural world).

If we neglect thinking in evolutionary terms we can easily be led astray. Take for example the vibrant colors of flowers: We could assume that the flowers are meant for the enjoyment of human observers (designed for our benefit). But we are only bystanders, which have stumbled upon a deeper truth. The colorful flowers have attracted pollinators over long periods of time, allowing seeds to spread. Nature favors brightly colored flowers over duller colors, because they are more noticeable to birds and insects. Generation after generation the colorful flowers have the advantage. It is not about us, it’s about the insects and the flowers. Nevertheless, we are here and can still enjoy the flowers.

The point I am trying to make is that the deeper questions of our lives need a deeper view. We can’t tackle profound questions with the same reasoning that we use to bake a cake or change a tire; a leap of imagination is required. Although we can’t think about the mysteries of life and the universe all of the time, for those that are philosophically inclined, we cannot help but think about it some of the time. Be forewarned that surface impressions are usually not the whole story.

 

References: Brainy Quote, 2001-2016. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/a/albert_einstein.html


 

Is Anything Possible?

You’ve heard it before: ‘anything is possible.’ I have also, but how much truth is there in this statement? On the surface it sounds OK; it’s usually used in a positive tone (but not always) and it’s open to seemingly unlimited possibilities. What could be wrong with that? Hold on just a minute until we look a little deeper.

highway-at-nightIs anything really possible? And can we determine when something becomes impossible? If a person losses a hand, it won’t grow back. A conventional air plane will not fly without wings. Pure water will not freeze if the temperature is above 0 degrees Celsius. So there you have it, anything is not possible. I don’t think this is a big revelation. People who say that ‘anything is possible’ know that it isn’t true. So why do they say it? We all go through life with insufficient knowledge, it’s just part of being human. I believe what people are really thinking is: many things are possible, or they don’t know what’s possible.

Nature’s Regularities

‘I don’t know what’s possible’ doesn’t sound quite as positive as ‘Anything is possible.’ So maybe that’s why the word anything is so often used. Despite our limited knowledge, there lies one fundamental truth which determines what is possible and what isn’t. This truth is related to the following question: What does the loss of a hand, an airplane not being able to fly and water not freezing have in common? On the surface they seem totally unrelated; however, they share a subtle and profound relationship. I’ll get back to this later but first a little back ground.

There are reasons why some things are possible and others impossible and they are fundamentally the same reasons. It has to do with the way the world works (in fact the entire universe). There exist regularities in nature, both seen and unseen. Some of these regularities would have been known in ancient times simply by observing nature. For example, the ancients were aware of the conditions needed to make fire and how to put it out. They learned how to grow food by observing how crops responded to the seasons and so on. Early humans had a rudimentary understanding of what might be possible. They achieved this with varying degrees of success by observing nature’s regularities. However, they lacked an appreciation of what was behind the observed regularities. A deeper understanding would come about later.

The Scientific Revolution of the 15th and 16th hundreds is the unofficial line of demarcation of modern science. This is when scientists began deciphering the laws that govern nature. The laws of nature are fundamental to the regularities we observe. For the first time nature could be explained by a series of scientific laws rather than superstition, conjecture or a few rules of thumb. For instance, seen phenomena such as the motion of objects were explained by Newton’s laws of motion. Perhaps even more ground breaking is that eventually parts of the unseen world could also be explained by scientific laws. For Example, quantum laws of the early 19th hundreds, of which several scientists were involved, explained the workings of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

Out of the Ordinary

In everyday experience people often use the ‘anything is possible’ line as a positive projection into the future. They are usually thinking about the trajectory of one’s life and the numerous untapped possibilities. In this context they are referring to ordinary events in human affairs. Ordinary in the sense that one doesn’t had to believe in anything outside the established laws of nature to account for what might unfold.

ghostSome people consider other ideas, which fall into a totally different category. These ideas are sometimes called paranormal or supernatural, but personally I dislike both those terms. The reason being, that some of these concepts diminish the established laws of nature. The simplest way I can convey what kind of ideas I mean is to begin with a list. The following is just from the top of my head and much more could apply: alien visitations, ghost stories, miraculous healings, near-death experiences, psychic readings and so on. With this list, one should ask: how do the laws of nature fit in these schemes?

Let’s look into one of the possibilities listed above. With alien visitations for instance, one has to consider such things as a life-sustaining planet and the distance the aliens would have to travel. A little understanding of the laws of nature can give us clues as to how seriously we should consider a claim. We know that other than Earth, there is no complex life in our Solar System. So our star system is out.

The nearest star system is a three star system call Alpha Centauri, of which Proxima is the closest (about 4.24 light years away). On the surface this doesn’t sound all that far away. However, if we consider present technologies, it would take anywhere from 19,000 to 76,000 years to make the trip. The wide range in estimates has to do with which technologies would ultimately prove viable for such a trip. We should also consider the possibility that the proposed aliens would have to come from much farther away.

rocketIn short, in an absolute best case scenario, there would have to exist a life-sustaining planet where intelligent life evolved and its inhabitants developed far superior technology. Not an impossibility, but a long shot. The determining factor is the limits imposed by the laws of physics. The limits in this case are distance and how fast a spaceship can travel. Keep in mind that no matter how advanced a technology may be it cannot overcome the laws of physics. Considering the distances involved, it seems unlikely that we have been visited by aliens.

Pure and Simple

Now back to my earlier question: about the loss of a hand, an airplane unable to fly and water not freezing. All three are determined by the laws of nature; specifically, the limits of biology, physics and chemistry. And that’s not only true for these three scenarios but for any proposed idea. That’s right, any proposed idea. That being said, it needs to be mentioned that our understanding of the laws of nature are likely incomplete and currently serve as our best representation of reality. Nevertheless, whether we are talking about everyday experience or the fantastic, the laws of nature run the show. Whether the answer lies within the scope of our knowledge or not; it all boils down to one simple truth: anything which is in principle allowed by the laws of nature is possible and anything which is not allowed by the laws of nature is impossible!

 

References: Universe Today, How Long Would it Take to Travel to the Nearest Star?, Sept 6, 2016 by Matt Williams. http://www.universetoday.com/15403/how-long-would-it-take-to-travel-to-the-nearest-star/


 

Evaluating Ideas

 

good ideaHow can we tell if an idea is a good one, or if a claim is true or false? When should we take a theory seriously or discard it? In an information age it is not always easy to separate the wheat from the chaff. One can find conformation on-line for just about any idea. When we are growing up, we tend to believe just about anything. For the most part, we accept what adults and authorities are telling us. We are also less likely to question what we read, what’s on television or the internet. However, at some point we have to grow up, and part of growing up is evaluating the validity of ideas.

How Can We Know What’s True?

scale 2Unfortunately there is no fail safe method that will always give us the right answer. That being said, there are modes of thinking that are more likely to get at the truth, or something close to it. A scientist would almost certainly evoke the scientific method as the best course of action. The empirical approach has proven effective at getting to the bottom of things. However, for the general public the scientific method is not always applicable. In everyday experience we are often faced with making assessments on the fly, or even if we have plenty of time to contemplate an idea, we are still left to our own devices. We don’t necessarily have access to the tools of science. It needs to be said nonetheless, that in some cases we can use established scientific knowledge as part of the evaluating process.

Idea Evaluation Checklist

ideas check listLife situations often demands that we buy in or reject certain ideas or claims. In everyday experience we need a way of moving forward, even though in most cases we can’t apply the scientific method. For what it’s worth, I present to you my idea evaluation check list. This list can be applied to a variety of ideas, claims or theories. It consists of 10 questions one might consider:

  1. Where does the preponderance of the evidence point to? This is a pros and cons way of looking at a situation. In other words, the evidence for vs. the evidence against.
  2. Is there a plausible explanation for how a proposed idea works? Here I am not suggesting that we need prof, but a sound explanation that makes sense on the surface. Such an explanation gives us some degree of confidence in an idea.
  3. Can this in principle be a shared experience? Can the idea proposed be tested or experienced by others?
  4. How reliable is the source? It is impossible for an individual to test or challenge everything. By necessity we must accept information from outside sources. Therefore, reliability of the source becomes important.
  5.  Do I want this to be true? If you want something to be true; a red flag should immediately be raised. In these cases one must be extra vigilant, not to let wishful thinking get in the way of sound judgement.
  6. Is the strength of the idea threatened by new information? If an idea can’t absorb new information, then it is substantially weaken. The knowledge base is constantly evolving. For that reason, some ideas need to be re-evaluated or even discarded as we learn more about the world.
  7. Can the idea be defended if challenged? Plain and simple, if you can’t defend your idea, why hold on to it?
  8. Is this how the world normally works? Does the idea comply with your understanding of the world? Or does your thinking need to be compartmentalized in order to make room for the idea?
  9. Are you confusing coincidence with causation? Just because two events happen in sequence, it does not automatically mean that one caused the other. A clear link between cause and effect needs to be established (beyond just A happened before B). Many false claims gain momentum because of this confusion.
  10. Does it ring true? On its own this is not enough, but if you need to tip the scale one way or the other, resort to what your gut is telling you.

So there you have it, my check list. Of course it is arbitrary; one could alter it and still come up with something as good or better. Nonetheless, I think that an exercise such as this one encourages critical thinking. Our world view is largely arrived at by what kind of ideas we accept or reject. What follows is: what we believe, what we don’t believe, and how we live our lives.

 

References: Michael Shermer: Baloney Detection Kit, Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science, Published on June 5, 2014.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNSHZG9blQQ


 

Interpreting Chance and Probabilities

mixed up cardsMuch of our lives are affected by random events; however, we are not fully aware of them. How could we, there is just too much randomness to keep track of. Despite our best efforts to reach our goals, we can’t eliminate the role of chance and unpredictability. We know that randomness exist, but to what extent? That is when a keen understanding of probabilities can be helpful. Calculating probabilities can determine a course of action and set realistic expectations for outcomes.

The insurance business is built on probabilities, which predict how often unforeseen events occur. That is, unforeseen for one particular individual, but almost a certainty for someone in a large group of people. For example: houses will burn down, cars will crash and people will die unexpectedly; we just don’t know who and where. Unfortunately, insurance cannot protect us from something bad happening (even the things we buy insurance for).

We like to think that we are in control of our lives. We tend to focus on intentions and give credence to willful actions or direct causes. Most of the time, when something works out for us we are eager to take credit. When something does not work out, we find fault by blaming ourselves or others. But I don’t think it’s that simple; success or failure is partly the result of chance (maybe as much as effort). Chance, however, does not mean that all outcomes have an equally chance of happening. Some outcomes are more probable than others, and sometimes it can be calculated.

How Do We Quantify Chance?

Although there are many unnoticed causes that we cannot quantify, there are situations when we can calculate chance. For example, a coin toss, the role of a die, and the dealing of playing cards. In simple situations, intuition is a reasonable guide. Simple mathematics instantly reveals the odds: There is a 1 in 2 chance of a coin landing on heads. There is a 1 in 6 chance of a die showing a six. There is a 1 in 52 chance of a turning over the ace of spade.

Problems arise when situations get more complicated. For instance, how many different possible outcomes are there for a 7 game series between 2 sports teams? From one team’s perspective, one outcome could be: win, win, loss, loss, win, loss and win. Like most probability questions, it can be calculated, but the answer is not immediately obvious. Assuming that all 7 games are played, there are 128 possible outcomes. In reality the outcomes are less, because after one team wins 4 games the series is over.

In fact, intuition is usually misleading. Why is that? 1) Humans are good at recognizing patterns, and often find patterns when there are none. 2) We tend to give more weight to recent events and stronger memories. 3) We are bias and notice what we look for. 4) Short-term results don’t always match actual probabilities, which will show up in larger sample sizes. The following are examples of how scrutinizing randomness can reveal surprising results.

Winning Super Bowls

Patriots teamAs a New England Patriots fan, I have enjoyed many exciting football games. For many years the Patriots were a perennial favorite to win the Super Bowl. From 2011 to 2015, they played in 5 consecutive AFC Championship Games (semi-finals). In those 5 years they won the Super Bowl once (the 2014 season). As an emotional fan, 1 Super Bowl victory in 5 semi-final appearances felt like a missed opportunity. They should have won more, I thought.

So was my initial reasoning sound? As it turns out: not really. I applied probabilistic thinking in 2 ways:

  1.  5 Consecutive AFC Championship Games (semi-finals): With 4 teams remaining at the end of the season, the chances are 1 in 4 that a chosen team will win the last two games. That’s assuming the 4 teams are equally talented, which is not always the case. But with a large sample size it should average out. In some years the Patriots were slightly better and in other years not as good. Nevertheless, the short-term result of 1 Super Bowl victory in 5 years is not surprising (the odds are 1 in 4).
  2. Team History: Then I considered the over-all team history. The Patriots have played in 12 AFC Championship Games in the Super Bowl Era. This includes a period, from 2001 to 2004, when the Patriots won 3 Super Bowls. The total numbers indicate that the Patriots have won 4 Super Bowls in 12 semi-final opportunities. That makes it 1 in 3, which beats the odds. So, what felt like an under achievement is actually a slight over achievement. Keep in mind that I am only calculating from the point of semi-final appearances. 5 consecutive AFC Championship games and 12 in total is way above average for a 32 team league.

The Monty Hall Problem

Let’s Make a Deal was a popular TV game show, which air in 1963 and ran for many years. The host was Monty Hall, and here is the problem: Monty Hall gave a contestant a choice, pick 1 of 3 doors. Behind one door was a valuable prize, and behind the other two was something far less valuable. Let’s say the contestant was playing to win a car. After the contestant picked a door (for example door #1), the host (who knew where the car was) opened one of the two remaining doors. Monty always opened a door with a dud prize (for example door #2).

Monty Hall ProblemThis is the point when the Monty Hall Problem arose. He gave the contestant the choice to change his/her mind. Should the contestant stick with door #1, or pick door #3. Without careful analysis, it seems that it makes no difference. Both door #1 and door #3 have an equal chance of winning the car. However, that is incorrect. The probability of winning is twice as high if the choice is switched.

The reasoning is very simple, yet it eludes many people. With the original choice, the odds are 1 in 3 that the car is behind the chosen door. That means that it’s 2 in 3 that the car is behind one of the other doors. When the host opens one of the dud doors (which he already knows has a dud prize), he is giving new information. He has eliminated one of the bad options. Therefore, there is a 2 in 3 chance of winning the car by switching doors (for example door #3), but only a 1 in 3 chance of winning by staying put.

We can exaggerate the game by imagining 100 doors. The contestant chooses 1 door and the host opens 98 doors without revealing the car. Remember that the host knows where the car is. The obvious choice here is to make the switch. There is only a 1 in 100 chance that the first choice is correct. That means that there is a 99 in 100 chance of winning the prize by switching doors.

Sharing a Birthday

birthday cakeIf you are hosting a party, what is the likelihood that two people will share the same birthday? Worded another way, how many people need to show up for the odds to be higher than 50%? Once again, intuition is shaky. One would think that the number would be quite high, as there are 365 days in a year. The answer is surprisingly low: just 23 guests will give a better than even chance of two people sharing a birthday.

The reason is that there are many possible combinations in which people can share a birthday. Each guest is not limited to matching a specific date on the calendar. Every arriving guest has the chance of matching a birthday with all the people already at the party. By the time it gets to 23 people, every guest has 22 chances of sharing a birthday with another guest.

My three examples above are fairly straight forward. Life is not as simple. Although we tend to feel responsible for the events in our lives, we should not underestimate the role of chance. Of all the possible outcomes, we don’t know how each day will turn out. We clearly can’t predict what will happen in life; however, there are isolated situations when information can help us determine the most probable outcomes. We need to figure out which facts apply and which facts do not apply. And unless we think it through, we can easily be fooled by surface information. Probabilistic thinking requires that at times we set our emotions and intuitions aside and let the numbers take over. Sometimes the numbers will reveal surprising results.

 

References: Leonard Mlodinow, The Drunkard’s Walk, (New York: Pantheon Books, 2008).


 

The Anthropic Principle

the astronomerWhy are we here? This is perhaps the most fundamental philosophical question. One can imagine contemplating this question at any time in human history. Many stories have been inspired by this question, usually taking the form of myths, or religious and spiritual traditions. Today, ‘why are we here’ is also a scientific question. The anthropic principle arose as a response to the question of human existence. The idea was first proposed in 1973 by theoretical astrophysicist Brandon Carter. Since then it has been expanded and stated in several forms.

What is the Anthropic Principle?

The word anthropic is defined by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as: “Of or relating to human beings or the period of their existence on Earth.” That’s a start. For simplicity I will stick close to Brandon Carter’s original formulation, which he expressed as two variants. I will paraphrase based on the description from a few sources:

  1. The Weak Anthropic Principle refers to our special location in the universe (both in time and space), which is conducive to our existence. The fact that we can observe the universe means that planet Earth must have the conditions necessary for our existence.
  2. The Strong Anthropic Principle refers to the fundamental laws of physics, which are precisely set for our existence. The strong principle takes into account the properties of the universe as a whole.

The Burden of Proof

habitable zoneIn a vast universe it is not surprising that a planet, like the Earth, has a special location (usually called a habitable zone or a Goldilocks zone). The specific laws of the universe needed for human life are more difficult to explain (usually called fine tuning). Using a legal metaphor, the strong anthropic principle has a greater burden of proof than the weak anthropic principle. In this case, burden of proof is a figure of speech, because the anthropic principle is as much a philosophical idea as a scientific one. 

In The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow describe the weak anthropic principle as an environmental factor. They write:

“Environmental coincidences are easy to understand because ours is only one cosmic habitat among many that exist in the universe, and we obviously must exist in a habitat that supports life”

The strong anthropic principle is all-encompassing and generally more controversial. Hawkings and Mlodinow go on:

“The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints not just on our environment but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves”

Stating the Obvious or a Profound Insight

Is the anthropic principle a satisfying explanation? On the surface, it seems like an obvious statement that explains very little. But as I reflect on the idea, I am not so sure. Maybe it is suggesting something profound. Perhaps the answer to why we are here is simple: it could not be otherwise.

Lawrence KraussFor example, Lawrence Krauss provides an anthropic interpretation to one of the universe’s properties. In the book, A Universe from Nothing, he examines the relationship between the energy density of matter and the energy density of empty space. Yes, space has energy and it can be measured. The density of matter in the universe can also be measured. It turns out that now is the only time in cosmic history that both values are comparable. That’s a curious result.

The universe has been expanding since the big bang, and as it expands the density of matter decreases. Matter gets diluted as galaxies get farther apart from each other. Meanwhile the energy in empty space remains constant (there is nothing to dilute or increase in empty space). Therefore at the time galaxies formed the density of matter was greater than the energy in empty space. That’s a good thing, because the gravitational effect of matter was dominant, which allowed matter to come together.

However, if the values for matter and energy had been comparable at the epoch of galaxy formation, galaxies would not have formed. Empty space exerts a repulsive force, which would have canceled out normal attractive gravity. Matter would not have clumped together. Krauss writes in A Universe from Nothing:

“But if galaxies hadn’t formed, then stars wouldn’t have formed. And if stars hadn’t formed, planets wouldn’t have formed. And if planets hadn’t formed, then astronomers wouldn’t have formed!”

It seems highly coincidental that the energy values for matter and space are roughly equal now, but they could not have equalized too much earlier. Otherwise, no one would be here to observe it. Similarly, if one of a number of physical properties were slightly different, we would also not be here. That’s when anthropic reasoning steps in: An observer must observe the conditions of the universe that allows the observer to exist.

astronomersMaybe a change of perspective is needed: Instead of focusing on our present circumstances and looking back, we can look at the evolution of the universe. Life is a latecomer to the process, of which an incalculable series of events occurred. Our existence is the result of all that came before. Although it does appear that the universe was made for us, it is in fact, the universe that made us. We were formed from the conditions that were set long before conscious beings could observe any of it.

Is Physics an Environmental Science?

The traditional approach of physics is to discover and understand the universe we live in. The fundamental laws and the values for the constants of nature are consistent throughout the observable universe. The physical laws discovered on Earth can be applied to the universe as a whole. But there can only be one exact set of laws and history that allow for our existence. That’s unless our universe is not the only one.

For some, recent scientific evidence is suggesting that there are many universes (a multiverse). Others point out that inferring a multiverse is not science; because by definition other universes cannot be observed directly (they would exist outside our observable universe). If we apply the strong anthropic principle to the multiverse theme, it does partly explain the exact parameters of our universe.

If the cosmos is populated with many universes, possibly infinite universes, then the laws of physics could be purely random. They would simply emerge as an environmental consequence. Some physicists have compared the multiverse to a foam of bubbles (each bubble representing a universe). The laws could be different in every bubble of an endless cosmic foam. Some bubble universes could be similar to ours, others vastly different.

Of course, this is a hypothetical argument. Nevertheless, if we could observe every universe in a multiverse, every single one would be finely tuned for its own existence. Anthropic reasoning would state that there is nothing special about our universe. In all the non-life generating universes there is no one to observe them, in ours there is. It’s that simple. Obviously, the anthropic principle (inferring a multiverse or not) is not a proven argument, but it’s one of many possible answers to the question: Why are we here?

 

References: Stephen W. Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design (New York: Bantam Books, 2010), 155.

Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe from Nothing (New York: Free Press, 2012).


 

Free Will: A Great Paradox

In the modern world we are faced with an almost unlimited amount of choices. We all make numerous decisions each day, whether we are aware of it or not. Many of our choices are relatively insignificant, such as: What will we wear today? What will we eat for breakfast? Will we stop at a coffee shop on our way to work? Then there are more important decisions we might tackle at work, depending on our occupation and position. Outside of work leisure time opens up another series of choices.

fork in the roadThen there are the big decisions, which can alter the course of one’s life. Good or bad outcomes often follow based on the decisions we take. For example: The partner we choose, the career we pursue and unforeseen events that will force us to choose the next path. As the saying goes: “When you reach a fork in the road, take it.”

An Introduction to So-Called Decision-Making 

Can we account for the decisions we make? Of course it is easy to rationalize why we do what we do, but what’s behind a decision? Most of us feel that our decisions are ours alone. But is that true? First let us look at different types of decisions (or perceived decisions).

  • Instinctual: There are actions we take that could be perceived as decisions but in reality aren’t. They are actions that are basically reactions to the outside world. For instance, if we cross the street and a car is racing at us, we will get out-of-the-way. Or if a ball is thrown at our face we will try to catch it with our hand.
  • Appetites: My favorite pie is pumpkin pie. As a dinner guest I am sometimes offered a choice of pies. If pumpkin is on the list, I will always choose it. I may have a gene that makes pumpkin pie taste better to me than other pies. Therefore, is my choice of pie actually a decision or a mere consequence of my genes?
  • Desires: Much of our life journey is a response to desires we can’t account for. These include career choices, sexual attraction, hobbies, leisure activities and more. We simply do not know why we are interested, or pushed in the directions we are. Our desires are a complex mix of genetics and cultural conditioning.
  • Contemplative: This is the slow pros and cons type of decision-making, when we take the time to weigh our options before we choose. For example, let’s say we are shopping for a new car. We will look at different models and probably tests drive a few vehicles. Weighing quality and cost we come to a final decision on a new car.

Of the four examples above, the last listed (contemplative) looks and feels most like a true decision. The other three fall more in a grey area where one can’t be sure how much decision-making is involved. As you will see later, even the contemplative type may not be what it appears to be at first glance. That brings to the table the idea of free will.

Free Will

free willWhat do we mean when we say free will? Free will is the idea that we have the ability to make decisions independent of our genetics and conditioning. Another way to think about free will is the belief that we could have done differently than we did in a given circumstance. And likely, the only way we could have done differently, is if we were different at the time. That is, if our genetics and conditioning were different.

We are who we are due to a long series of events not of our choosing. To account for the actions we take, one has to consider evolutionary history. The human brain (presumably key to decision-making) is a product of evolution and each unique brain is genetically based. Also parenting and social conditioning have a significant effect on human development and behavior. One could even conclude that in order to have free will the universe would have to be different.

The Universe on a Pool Table

Let’s do a simple thought experiment. A pool table is used as a model for the universe. In this experiment only one shot is considered (the break). The table represents all of space and the fundamental forces. The billiard balls act as the particles (atoms, sub-atomic particles and so on). The cue stick is the force behind the big bang. At the break, the cue ball is struck and from that point on everything else follows.

pool ballsAs an observer one has to wait and see how the balls will collide and bounce around, but it can only turn out one way. It was all determined by the brake and the way the table was setup. The movement of the billiard balls are a consequence of the characteristics of the balls, the break and the nature of the table. One could say that it is a closed system; after the initial conditions nothing can intervene in the process.

Now let’s look at the actual universe. The big bang created spacetime, the fundamental forces and particles. All the particles behave as a consequence of the conditions at the big bang (the break) and the acting forces. Can anything after the initial conditions intervene in how the universe unfolds? The universe is also a closed system, it just happens to be unimaginably larger that a pool table. We should be mindful not to confuse our ignorance of the future with the prospect of altering it.

A Game of Dice

What I just described is a deterministic picture of the universe. It is sometimes referred to as the Newtonian view or classical physics. Here the universe unfolds like clockwork. If the present conditions are known, then the laws of physics can be applied either forward or backwards in time with great accuracy. Nevertheless, it needs to be mentioned that another set of physical laws described by quantum mechanics seems to contradict the classical picture.

At the scale of the atom randomness is introduced and outcomes can only be predicted in terms of probabilities. There is no sure way to determine what a single sub-atomic particle will do. Only if a sufficient number of identical experiments are run, will the aggregate of outcomes reflect the assigned probabilities. So what we are left with is a deterministic framework at the large-scale and a probabilistic understanding for the small-scale.

Some people believe that quantum mechanics seems to erode determinism and opens the door for free will. However, I would argue that randomness and probabilities doesn’t get us any closer to free will. If the universe is essentially deterministic, or on occasion tosses a dice, how does any of this grant us free will? Whether classical or quantum laws apply, the universe is presumably still subject to those laws, and so are we.

The Great Paradox

 Does something change when consciousness arises?  Conscious beings are made of the same kind of particles that permeate the universe. There is no reason to think that brains are any different. If our thinking faculties are caused by natural forces acting on particles in our brain, how can we conclude that our decisions are ours alone?

To examine this question let’s do another thought experiment. Let’s say you are asked to name the first city that comes to your mind. After a few seconds of reflection you say Rome. Can you account for why you did not think of Paris, or any one of hundreds of other possible cities? Even if you were given a little more time and asked to choose a city, you would still be limited to a list that your mind could produce. It would appear to me that we fundamentally do not choose our thoughts, they simply arise. How can we get to free will if we don’t choose our thoughts? I suppose one could make the argument that from a collection of thoughts that do arise, we can then choose and that constitutes free will. However, that would mean that our decisions are influenced by a stream of thoughts that our conscious mind does not produce.

Scientifically and Philosophically, the idea that we have free will makes little sense. Some people realize this, but if we adopted this principle on mass, it could be the collapse of society as we know it. The idea of free will touches everything we do. Without free will (or we could call it personal responsibility) everything about our society would change. We would have to rethink our justice system, religions, morality and relationships. Nevertheless, if we all agreed that decisions are caused rather than made, it would undoubtedly lead to a more compassionate world. We would probably still have to hold people accountable for their behavior, but we would be less inclined to be judgmental, angry or resentful.

From a personal decision-making stand point, without free will, we would also be easier on ourselves for perceived bad decisions that often lead to regret. This we can do right now, regardless of how society at large thinks about free will. Nevertheless, going forward we are confronted with an unavoidable paradox. How can we possibly go through the normal decision-making process without the feeling that we are in control? And there lies the great paradox. Even if one accepts that free will is an illusion, I don’t see any other reasonable choice (a choice that is fundamentally not ours) than to live as if we have it.

 

References: Sam Harris on “Free Will”, Published on March 27, 2012https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g.

Free Will — What Sam Harris Gets Right and Wrong, Published on April 10, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pJXt3LclcY


 

The Most Life-Altering Concept in Philosophy

The human ego is an illusion. Breaking free from this illusion, at least periodically, is a critical step towards spiritual growth. The ego is nothing more than a mental construct, which identifies with ones thoughts; it is empowered when we believe we are what we think. The ego strings together past events and projects into the future. It is the part of ourselves that compares and separates us from others. For most people their sense of self is closely tied to the ego.

Human brain glowing lateral viewThe concept of self that I want to point out is a wider state of human consciousness. It is pure awareness in the present moment, independent of other experiences. The words enlightenment, awakening, transcendence and mindfulness have been used to describe something similar. I see self-awareness as a fundamental result of consciousness, while the ego is a mind created entity.

The illusion I want to point out is that when we define ourselves, more often than not, we are describing our ego. By doing this we are missing out on a more complete sense of self, one that numbs our subjective individuality in favor of an interconnected reality with the outside world.

The Illusion

I am only beginning to recognize the full deception of the illusion, and the power to be transformed by becoming aware of it. For me, it is still a work in progress, although I have already experienced a shift in how I see myself.

The idea that the ego is an illusion is difficult to explain. Even if it is understood in principle, it still has to be internalized and applied to one’s life. So convincing is the illusion of the ego that for some people the words on this page will be meaningless. They are totally convinced they are their ego (nothing more, nothing less). However, once the illusion is identified the implications can be profound and life changing. Realizing that the ego is not what it seems can be the first step towards spiritual transformation.

Our ego is derived by the continuous stream of experiences. Our memories and experiences are woven into a coherent story, the story of me and the story of you. The stronger the attachment we have with our story, the stronger the identification is with the ego. In addition, the story is also projected into the future. Contrary to popular thinking, someone with a large ego does not necessarily believe he/she is better than other people; they simply identify more strongly with their story (their past and future).

The ego identifies with the external world in different ways, and misinterprets the external reality for the internal reality. To the ego, we are what we do, have, own, make and look. Our sense of identity is tied in with possessions, money, status, occupations, roles, appearances, and the opinion of others. These are things mostly outside of us, and they become part of our story. But things we identify with are not who we are.

The Collective Ego

There is another aspect to the ego which is just as prevalent. These are the things we identify with as a group (the collective ego). Being absorbed by our ego creates a mental position that separates us from life and other groups of people. Collectively, these mental positions are strengthened and become even more destructive. The collective ego takes several forms, such as: nationalism, race, religion, politics, ethnicity, tribal and ideologies.

world war 2 tanks

As long as we can say: “We are right and they are wrong,” or “We are good and they are evil,” or “It’s us against them,” then the door is open for all kinds of abuses. The collective consciousness that completely separates humanity into distinct groups is the root of war and violence. Contemporary spiritual teacher Eckhart Tolle writes in A New Earth:

“By far the greater part of violence that humans have inflicted on each other is not the work of criminals or the mentally deranged, but of normal, respectable citizens in the service of the collective ego.”

Breaking Free From the Illusion

Eckhart TolleEckhart Tolle has written several books on spiritual growth. Central to his message, in The Power of Now and A New Earth, is the human dysfunction associated with the ego. And that an enlightened state of consciousness is possible by dissolving the ego. This can only occur when we access the dimension of the present moment. The ego arises through the stories in our minds; fully focused on the present there is no story. The ego exists only as a mental construct, just like the past and future. In reality, only the present is real.

In the The Power of Now, Tolle recalls his experience of breaking away from identification with the ego. After a lengthy period of anxiety and depression, one simple thought completely changed his perspective of life. On one especially dreadful night he thought:

“I cannot live with myself any longer.” This was the thought that kept repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a peculiar thought it was. “Am I one or two? If I cannot live with myself, there must be two of me: the ‘I’ and the ‘self’ that ‘I’ cannot live with.” “Maybe,” I thought, “only one of them is real.”

The Transformation of Consciousness

Tolle realized that his suffering was caused by his identification with the ego. This was the ‘self’ he could not live with. He learned that by relinquishing the ego, his anxiety and depression would also disappear; his state of mind shifted to deep peace and bliss.

The core problem is the stress that arises in order to maintain the false self. The ego is never satisfied for very long, as it always needs to be built up. What arises in most people is a deep-seated feeling of longing, of never having enough or being enough. It is an endless game of striving, struggling, competing, fighting, arguing, and so one.

We all have an ego, a form of self-preservation I suppose. No doubt it evolved as a survival mechanism. A strong sense of individual identity must have been an advantage in a highly competitive environment. We still compete today on many levels, but for the most part it is not life or death. The key insight is to see it for what it is: an unavoidable part of the human condition that has to be kept in check.

Tolle also realized that the entry point towards enlightenment is the present moment. That is The Power of Now, the transformation of consciousness that emerges by letting go of our story, and living fully in the present. The true self is the conscious awareness behind our thoughts, the ego and our story. Living in the now, free from the grip of ego, is the simplest and most practical philosophy for well-being and mental health. That is the most life-altering concept in philosophy.

 

References:

Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth (New York: Plume, 2006), 73.

Eckhart Tolle, The Power of Now (Vancouver: Namaste Publishing, 2004), 4.

Bruce Hood, The Self Illusion (Canada: HarperCollins Publishers Ltd, 2012.


 

The Tao Does Nothing, But Leaves Nothing Undone

This is the opening line in the 37th verse of the Tao Te Ching, an ancient Chinese book of wisdom. The Tao (pronounced dow in English) is an indescribable force that permeates all things. The Tao does nothing in the sense that it can’t be identified in precise terms, but leaves nothing undone in the sense that all things contribute in an interconnected way. And speaking of way, the word Tao is generally translated as the way. The way, meaning a path that one follows, which is in harmony with nature. Te is translated as power or virtue, and Ching is a book.

The Tao is a mysterious concept and its true meaning is almost impossible to express in language. The 1st Verse of the Tao Te Ching begins as follows: “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.”

Some contemporary spiritual teachers have written and lectured about the wisdom of the Tao Te Ching. Although I am sure there are many, 3 influential figures come to my mind: Alan Watts, whose lectures from the sixties and seventies are still posted on You Tube. In recent years, Eckhart Tolle and Dr. Wayne W. Dyer have incorporated Tao philosophies into their teachings. In his book, Change Your Thoughts-Change Your Life, Dyer describes his interpretation of the concept that is called “the Tao.”

“The Tao is the supreme reality, an all-pervasive Source of everything. The Tao never begins or ends, does nothing, and yet animates everything in the world of form and boundaries, which is called “the world of the 10,000 things.”

The Legend of Lao-tzu

Loa-TzuLegend has it that a wise old man, named Lao-tzu, wrote the Tao Te Ching (sometime between the 6th and 4th century B.C.). Lao-tzu was the keeper of the archives of imperial China. He became frustrated with the unrest in the empire. He decided to leave and headed west, where he was recognized by a border guard. Lao-tzu was asked to write down his wisdom before he left, which became the Tao Te Ching. Afterwards, he left the kingdom and was never seen again.

There is, however, no way to verify if this is historically accurate. Lao-tzu actually translates to old master. It could be that the original text is a collection of proverbs from various sources, or perhaps what has survived is an incomplete version. Nevertheless, the book has been translated thousands of times in many languages. A few centuries later a movement began, which became Taoism. There is also some speculation that the Tao Te Ching may have influenced the birth of Buddhism.

Religion or Philosophy

The core concept of the Tao has led to the development of the Taoist faith. I use the word faith as opposed to the word religion, because Taoism is fundamentally different from other world religions. The Tao is not a God in the traditional western sense. The concept of God as a controlling figure is absent in Taoism. In the Tao, there is no controlling center; everything is allowed to be, and each component is viewed as part of a harmonious system.

Based on the Tao, there are no prescribed directions to follow; it is left to individuals to find their own way. The Tao Te Ching is a guide for living in harmony with nature, but it is not a manual. Taoism is as much a philosophy as it is a religion.

The Way of Nature

The flow of water is a powerful symbol for the Tao. Flowing water finds the lowest or easiest path. There is also the inevitability of the direction of the water. Take for example, the flow of a river; much better to go with the current than to try to go against it. There is a way to nature and the universe, but it is difficult if not impossible to pinpoint. The main goal is to experience the Tao by allowing and accepting nature as it is, not by trying to control it.

Ying and YangThe Tao Te Ching also points out the paradoxes of nature. Even polar opposites are viewed as working together. Hence the terms and symbols of yin and yang, which represent opposite forces in nature; they are seen as complementary and interconnected. For example, there is a balance between high and low, soft and hard, hot and cold and light and dark. Or one could say there is no light without darkness. Following the way is living in balance.

The Way Forward

We could do worse than adopt an open philosophy of life that aligns with nature. When we consider the immense problems caused by extreme and competing religious dogmas, and financial greed and inequality that disregard the well-being of the environment, it should make us pause: “Where are we going?”  If humans are going to find their way in such confusing times, we will have to incorporate principles that are compatible with nature.

waterfallI find it refreshing that ancient concepts contained in the Tao Te Ching are lining up with a modern scientific view. Science has discovered a multitude of interconnected parts that make up our world. Life is so interconnected that it is sometimes difficult to determine when one living system begins or ends. The whole planet (or even the universe) can be viewed as one system or organism. Everything that exists is compatible with the whole. If it were not, it wouldn’t be here. Alan Watts summarizes the Tao in the following manner:

“The whole conception of nature is as a self-regulating, self-governing, indeed democratic organism. But it has a totality, it all goes together, and this totality is the Tao.”

 

References: Dr. Wayne W. Dyer, Change Your Thoughts-Change Your Life (United States: Hay House Inc., 2007).

Alan Watts – The Taoist Way, Published on Jan. 13, 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iv9zocKASsM

In Our Time Philosophy: Daoism (Dec. 15, 2011).