On Certainty

Doubt is a very powerful force in our minds. Not knowing the future for certain, we constantly speculate and attempt to deduce what lays ahead in the paths of our collective lives using whatever methods we can find. Many instances of stress are essentially the physical manifestation of this doubt: Can I pay my bills? Am I loved? Am I doing this whole life thing right? If the world worked in a state of pure chaos, nothing acting like it had before, being able to predict possible future actions would be impossible. If one has the ability to estimate future potential actions, they are more easily able to navigate the world, and of course the more secure one's knowledge of the future possible outcomes, the less risk is taken when putting energy into an action, be it a search for food, a chance to mate, etc. 

Anything that relieves this nearly permanent cloud of doubt from the skies of our minds often becomes a very important part of the way we interact with the world around us. In fact, the amazingly complex world of ideas and culture seems to have been born out of our desire to understand the world around us and the attempt at lessening the uncertainty of the future. One of the unique things about the human mind that differentiates us from the great majority of the rest of the animal kingdom is our ability to predict future consequences from our actions. Through an immensely complex system of dopamine receptors which are associated with reward and long term planning, we are able to postulate the both physical and social repercussions of our everyday lives. Because we have such complex webs of attention, anything that would allow us to move on and not worry about any given event would obviously become a boon, thus the concept of certainty is born. Why worry if you will be able to eat if you have agriculture, which eliminates most of the worry of securing food for your kit and kin? Certainty plays a significant role in our own internal self image as well. We need to know that certain things are able to be counted on, so we can make decisions with out a tremendous amount of risk. If something can, with any degree of certainty, be relied on to happen, we can divert our attentions and energies towards other new ideas or other complications we come across in life. And, if what we chose led us to tremendous amounts of strife, we would be unable to trust our own decision making processes. Without certainty, we would be lost in a world of indecision.

For me, absolute certainty is essentially a thing of myth. The world around us is a living thing, and because of that, it is constantly changing, adapting, creating, destroying. The environment in which a singular event occurs can essentially never be repeated with 100 percent accuracy, due to the staggering number of variables likely in any given experiment. Obviously, there are many things that work in extremely similar manners when repeated, but never absolutely the same; and if studied closely enough, the minute difference can reveal themselves. This is not to say that we should lock ourselves in bunkers await some sort of chaotic apocalypse, but rather to highlight that even though we have a great amount of certainty in many things, gravity, the tides, etc., they are not permanent. The current life cycles of plants and animals are themselves evolving through time. What was "true" about a dog's life now was quite different 100,000 years ago.

So how do we properly deal with this roiling undercurrent of uncertainty in our world? Well, the last thing we should ever consider is anything that attempts to guarantee certainty. Anything that states, unequivocally, that one particular idea, concept, or theory is immutable is fundamentally at odds with the apparent nature of the universe. This is why I have such strong feelings towards religion, particularly very strictly orthodox sects. While this totalitarian thought process appears to be more prevalent in monotheistic religions, the overall nature of what religion does violates this edict of uncertainty. 

Religion is essentially a tool by which people rationalize the world around them. It is a set of conceptual wireframes used to describe what we are experiencing and build up a series of explanations for all of it. The problem, of course, is that these explanations are mostly unchangeable. The world of a Christian is built on the presumption that a God created the universe, and all else is extrapolated from that. No further explanation is necessary, as this fact is set in stone. The entire religion is built around a premise that is viewed as infallible, and cannot be refuted and is considered for all intents and purposes permanent for all eternity.

And this is obviously a very powerful and enticing prospect. Our complex brains are built to explore and explain the world around us, and if everything is explained in a nice neat package, then we are able to go on and do other things. And that would work if the world was in a state of permanently stability. It is not. Science, on the other hand, mostly assumes the impermanent nature of the universe. A scientific theory is not something that is set in stone. It is essentially saying "Ok, this is what we have so far, though there may be some changes later" A scientific theory is defined as "...a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Science IS the search for greater certainty. It presupposes nothing, and holds in its core the idea that the world is an ever-changing place. Science, as a world-explaining tool, is much better equipped to deal with radical changes in the explanations of the world, as they both are mutable, adaptable. Even if a theory is incorrect, it is able to be changed. There have been bountiful numbers of incorrect theories, but what works with this method is that they can be false. It requires theories to be tested and proven over time. The more quantifiable proof that something works in a particular way, the more certain one can be about it.

This constant search and accepted uncertainty may not sound appealing to some, but I'd rather be 65% right than 100% wrong. 

I am certain of it.

More On The Love Bug

Now, some may look at the theory of the Love Bug as pessimistic. Perhaps thinking that with the "magic" gone from how we bond with one another, the entire pursuit of love becomes a meaningless gesture. Obviously, I disagree. What I am trying to accomplish with this theory is to release some of the anxiety caused by what I see as an intense pressure to seek out a feeling that seems rather hard to find, and even harder still to keep. And these are not just social pressures. The chemicals that cause the feeling of love act very much like a drug, complete with addiction and withdrawals. And much like anything else, moderation and mindfulness of the effects can greatly diminish the negative aspects.

So what can we do? What causes the frustration and pain oft associated with love or lack there of? For me, the main accomplice is the nature of how our society defines our relationships. Everyone's life is full of relationships, be they minor acquaintances or life long friends. What I have never understood is the need to compartmentalize these relationships, to separate out certain types of relationships into specific catagories. All relationships involve bonding, sharing, interaction. Some are obviously closer than others; you are going to have more bond with an old friend than a stranger. But the area that I don't quite get is when it comes time to separate out someone to "love." 

What I feel has happened in modern society is that we tend to reserve ourselves when dealing with many of these feelings and emotions associated with love because we think should be only exchanged with certain people. Because of the way love has been packaged, idealized, we assume that those deep feelings of connection only belong to certain people. What we are doing is ignoring these very powerful feelings when they manifest with others out of some notion of respect for the paradigm of love. We actively lie to ourselves to block out emotions because of some idealized vision of what we think relationships should be. Because we consider one possible set of emotions somehow sacred, we interact with these feelings as if they were in some way unique or different. 

And that's just it. We base our actions on the idea of what we think ought to be. We change what we do and how we interact with others to strive for some goal that is essentially arbitrary. Throughout history, we have constantly changed and adjusted how we deal with these feelings, though the actually, chemical emotions themselves I doubt have changed at all in the last hundred thousand years. Marriage in it's current form didn't even exist until 400 years ago. There are arranged marriages, group marriage, forced marriage. For a long time, marriage didn't even have religious sacrament, it was just a private agreement between two people. 

I feel as if relationships are on a continuum, with some people being very close, and some not. And every one of those relationships is different. No two are alike. What you share in common with some friends may be lost on others. You can talk football with an old college buddy, then discuss politics with a coworker. But even if two friends are so different they cannot hold a conversation, you still share a bond with both. You care about both. These bonds are the essence of our humanity.  

What I further propose is a reevaluation of love. It is not a sacred thing, to be put away or viewed from a distance as a lofty neigh impossible goal. It is our essence. Why would you withhold feelings that draw you closer to your friends? This may come off as incredible hippie-sounding, but seriously, why can't we love everyone? The only thing stopping us is a culturally created idea that one should only exchange these feelings, or open up emotionally, or share moments of intimacy with only one person. I'm not specifically advocating polyamory, as that is just picking two people to share love with instead of one. You still end up drawing a line of difference, saying that some are worthy of this feeling and some aren't, when we are all looking for someone, anyone, who thinks we are worthy. I'd rather have many people consider me worthy, just as I would never want to just give those feelings to one, or three, people. The closer you look at the lines between friendship and love, the blurrier they become. Loving your friends never seems hard, so why do we fight tooth and nail to change that into something that more or less doesn't exist?

To take a note from the Wu Wei of Taoism, the harder you press against the flow of nature, the more strife you take on. We as humans are meant to interact, to bond, to love. The more rigid the definition, the harder it is to achieve what you think to be love. 

Ok, so maybe I'm just a crazy hippie.

On The Love Bug

Ten thousands years ago, our ancestors looked to the skies and saw magic lights dance across the blackness. They revered or feared these lights, and to explain them, they created stories and myths, which made them do things like carving hearts out in appeasement to a sun gods. The more they payed attention to these lights, the less they feared them, and began to use their movement to coordinate travel and to schedule the planting of crops. Now, as we have found through advances in science and technology, we know the stars for what they are. Their movements are still the foundation of our agriculture, though the magic is gone.

Three hundred years ago, if someone became ill, the causes were essentially unknown. They blamed spirits, bad blood, sin. Once we discovered bacteria and viruses, we were able to treat sickness. Both instances are real things that are much better dealt with after we accepted their non magical nature. Out minds are capable of creating very unusual connections and illusions as we as a species need to explain our surroundings, and often convince ourselves that things have more mystery than they actually do.

I'm sure most people will flat out think I'm crazy when I suggest that we take a similar approach to love. I know, I know. Hear me out.

Now, I'm not saying we ignore what we feel as love. There is already extensive research into the hormone oxytocin which appears to be the cause of the intense emotions we all know and feel. But these feelings are immensely important. They cause us to bond with one another, to form closeness. Our nurturing abilities are rooted in this hormone, which is unique to mammals; they are closely associated with birth and nursing. The usefulness of this hormone is evident, and I'm in no way saying we should ignore or right off these feelings.

What I propose is that we simply handle them a little better. Much like the stars, germs, and many other previously mysterious phenomenon, the causes of love are very certainly caused by natural things. When we view something as magical, we are unable to properly deal it's effects. If we view love as something magic, we think that it comes and goes for no reason, or we place blame on inconsequential things when that feeling fades away. 

Yes, those feelings are there to bring you closer to someone, and are signs that a person could be a partner in raising children and continuing our humanity. But when someone can't let go of a failed relationship because it was something "special" is not handling those feeling properly. There is nothing healthy about obsessive predatory relationships borne in the mind of someone who believes these feelings to be something out of the ordinary. People submit themselves to all kinds of emotional and physical anguish because they believe what they are feeling to be supernatural, and therefore something that can't be truly "explained." I'm sorry to break it to you all, but there is no such thing as meant to be. There is no "one". Fighting to save something that you believe to be destiny will cause nothing but pain.

It's obvious why these feelings are there and make us feel like they do. It is the imperative of life to reproduce, and anything that expedites that process is surely a positive thing. Not to mention the added benefits that these same feelings are the roots of our social nature, and therefore our culture and humanity. 

This is why I also think it imperative to treat these feelings for what they are. Yes, it's painful if these feelings go away, and yes, it's absolutely amazing when those feelings are there. That doesn't change if we also realize that it is not magic, but the same amazing chemical architecture that gave the bounty of wondrous beauty that is the life all around us. Isn't that magical enough?

On ideas

Easily one of the most elegant and powerful memes I have encountered is that of the meme itself.

The term meme was coined by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene, though the concept was around before that. Memetics is the theory that, like genes, our ideas and cultural concepts replicate and evolve. So, basically, a quantifiable unit of ideas. The metaphor is not entirely accurate, as there are minute chemical processes involved in both that do not necessarily translate, at least not in terms that are widely accepted. But memetics seems to have some philosophic validity, at least for me.

One of the main criticisms against memetics is quite literally that we are still not entirely certain how our brain remembers things. We have no physical evidence of the processes involved when a thought or a memory happens. I, of course, am no expert in neurobiology or anything like that, so all I can come up with is optimistic speculation. 

 

We have found through extensive testing and experimentation, that what we internally experience as "life" is the sum total and collective webbing of neurons that makes up our brain. Each neuron has hundreds of connections to other neurons, allowing for this vast matrix of links. A neuron on it's own is essentially worthless. 

What makes the system work is the comparative and cooperative nature of these neurons. There is no "red apple" neuron. However, there are neurons that are fired when your eyes experience the color red. There are also neurons that fire when your olfactory glands detect the scent of an apple, when your taste buds are washed with an apples' sweet juices. So, when you experience an apple, what you are really experiencing is the collected data from your various senses, each neuron being a part of the jigsaw puzzle that becomes the experience, or "memory" of the apple. So, similar to muscle memory, the more exposure to the stimuli, the stronger those connection between neurons become, the stronger the "memory". This learning is universal, and is why the mouse stops eating the electrically charged cheese.

But what if your culture decided that apples were bad, for whatever reason. There would be another set of neurons that would become associated with apples: those that deal with feelings of disgust. Just in the same way someone with strict halal or kosher diets would find pork disgusting. There is no direct physical reason to not "enjoy" an apple, but the feelings of enjoyment or disgust can be linked with the base set of neural associations. 

So what I propose is that the "meme" is this very association. It is the set of neurons linked when experiencing an object. Humans all feel the same pain, the same internal chemical responses of pleasure, the same set of reactions.  The vast differences in our culture lay in the complex set of these connections.

It may seem unlikely that our brains are really processing this much information at any given time. But, of course, keep in mind that there are around one hundred billion (100,000,000,000) neurons in the average brain, making the web vast and expansive. And because of the expansive nature of our brains, there are nigh infinite possibilities within the framework.

This idea follows into evolutionary psychology. The better your body is at making those new connections between neurons, the more flexible you become, and therefore making it just ever so slightly easier to survive. So while there is no neuron for "fire making", the set of connections: that wood can burn, that sparks are made if two rocks are hit together, are a set of memes that can be passed on. The easier it is for you to learn these things, the more energy can be spent eating, reproducing, et cetera.

So what does this tell us? It mean that culture, while important to our social interactions, is very flexible. Each learned response is a thread in the tapestry of culture.  We bond with people who have similar connections because we have the same learned responses of fear, pleasure, pain, or joy as they do, and are essentially using the same set of comparative lenses with which to view the world. It also means that, logically, no one is "right" when it comes to these memes. Someone eating gǒu ròu in China feels no pangs of disgust, nor does a westerner eating hamburger, though if those meals were served elsewhere, you'd have some unhappy costumers.

But that's just they way I've put it together...

On blogging

The only people who blog are people so obsessed with their own recursive incestuous thoughts  that they feel the need to met out their batshit insane ideas on the poor undeserved masses. 

They fail to account for the reality that we all have opinions, unique to the varying billions of cultural palates of the world, making all equally valid. 

Yet they trudge on, oblivious to the futility.

I would never ever trust the words of one of these narcissistic degenerates, as they are tainted with folly and delusions of grandeur.

And if I saw one in the street, I would give him pie.