The smallest things we do can have huge effects

I don't believe in God. I do believe in the universe. Because it is clearly objectively real, and there's no evidence that God exists as anything other than subjective ideas in human minds.

So I love it when the universe appears to have a message for me. I emphasized appears, since the message I got today from the universe is solely mine. Maybe it's just a coincidence that two authors I've read recently had similar things to say.

No matter. I'm merely sharing what each of them said, which makes a lot of sense to me.

First, I get regular emails from Joan Tollifson where she communicates a fresh essay in line with her particular view of Zen, Buddhism, and spirituality in general. I've become a big fan of Tollifson after reading her book, Nothing to Grasp

(I've written several blog posts about the book.)

I liked her newest essay, "The freedom to be exactly as you are," so much, I've included the whole thing as a continuation to this post. Just click on the continuation link and you can read it. Here's an excerpt that reminds me a lot of how Robert Sapolsky describes the illusion of free will in his book, Determined.

In the conceptual picture of cause and effect, it certainly appears that people make things happen. We can seemingly control some things, such as opening and closing our hand, but not other things, such as the functioning of our spleen. These relative differences cannot be denied. We are conditioned to believe in free will and in our responsibility to accomplish great things, be a good person, do our duty, and so on. We habitually judge ourselves and others, compare ourselves to others, and think that we (and others) should be better, stronger, smarter, wiser, more compassionate, more successful, more attractive, more something than we are.

But we don’t actually get to choose the role we are playing in the movie of waking life. No one can simply “decide” to be Martin Luther King or Ramana Maharshi, or to not be Adolph Hitler or Pol Pot if that is the part we’ve been given. Even if we seemingly “choose” to change such things as our name, gender, career, hairstyle, religious affiliation, or anything else, each of these “choices” is a choiceless movement of life itself. Every apparent individual is the result of infinite causes and conditions—the whole universe is moving as each one of us and as everything that happens, and no form ever actually persists for more than an instant. You are not the same as you were when you began reading this article—the whole universe has shifted.

Second, Brian Klaas has written a book, Fluke: Chance, Chaos, and Why Everything We Do Matters, that has nothing to do with Zen or Buddhism, from what I can tell after reading about half of it. Yet these excerpts are very much in line with what Tollifson had to say above. They just approach the subject differently.

(Here's a link about how different sperm from the same man differ a lot, if you don't believe what Klaas says about this.)

Motivational posters tell you that if you set your mind to it, you can change the world. I've got some good news for you: you already have. Congratulations! You're changing it right now because your brain is adjusting slightly just by reading the words I've written for you. If you hadn't read this sentence, the world would be different.

I mean that literally. Your neural networks have now been altered, and it will — in the most imperceptible, minute way — adjust your behavior slightly over the remainder of your lifetime. Who knows what the ripple effects will be. But in an intertwined system, nothing is meaningless. Everything matters. 

You may think this all sounds a bit trivial or abstract, but consider this: You might decide, or you have already decided, to bring some new humans into the world. Without getting into graphic detail, the precise moment that a baby is conceived is one of the most contingent aspects of our existence. On the day it happens, change any detail — no matter how insignificant — and you end up with a different child.

Suddenly, you have a daughter instead of a son, or vice versa — or just a different son or daughter. Siblings often diverge in unexpected ways, so any change in who is born will radically change your life — and the lives of countless others.

But it's not just the one day that a child is conceived that matters. Instead, amplify that contingency by every moment of your life. Each detail in the entire chain-link architecture of your lifetime had to be exactly as it was for the exact child who was born to be born. That's true for you, for me, for everyone.

Yet again, the motivational posters have sold you short. "You're one in a million!" they shout at you with uplifting glee. Try one in a hundred million, because that's how many competitors, on average, your single-celled predecessor outswam to successfully become half of yourself. 

You matter. That's not self-help advice. It's scientific truth. If someone else had been born instead of you — the unborn ghost whom you outcompeted in the existence sweepstakes — countless other people's lives would be profoundly different, so our world would be different, too. The ripples of life spread out, in unexpected ways, for eternity.

Click below for the entire Tollifson essay.

 

Fluke: great book about chance, chaos, and how everything matters

I'd vowed not to buy any more books from Amazon until I'd finished reading the ones I'd already started. But then a review in New Scientist changed my mind. Which I'm glad it did. Because Fluke, by Brian Klaas, is a highly provocative book about how chance and chaos govern life to a much greater extent than we normally consider -- since most of us consider that we're able to steer our way through the twists and turns of life through reason, intuition, and our own good sense when it comes to decisions. I've only read the Introduction and the…

In Daniel Dennett vs. Robert Sapolsky debate, Sapolsky clearly won

Hey, it's been a while since I've written a post about free will, or rather, the lack thereof. Obviously the universe determined that I take a break from one of my favorite subjects. Not a complete break, though. For during my daily at-home exercise routine, I've been listening to a debate between Robert Sapolsky, who wrote the recent instant-classic book Determined that persuasively argues why free will is an illusion, and Daniel Dennett, a philosopher who is noted for his view that while determinism guides the world, free will still exists. Here's the You Tube video of their debate. To…

Our choosing just happens. It doesn’t spring from free will.

It's such a beautiful way of looking upon the world. I didn't choose to write this blog post. You didn't choose to read it. Yet here we are, a blog post having been written, and a blog post having been read. This is how the entire world works. Things happen, yet there is no one making them happen.  As bizarre as this may seem, it makes good sense for a couple of reasons. First, free will is an illusion. Second, the notion of an independent self capable of freely choosing also is an illusion.  So choosing just happens. I love…

What we do, think, and feel comes not from us, but the cosmos

The title of this blog post, though a statement, actually is a proposition, a hypothesis, a possibility. It fits with a heck of a lot of spiritual teachings, and it fits with a heck of a lot of scientific teachings. I've been pondering the source of my actions, thoughts, and feelings more intensely now that I'm reading Joan Tollifson's provocative book, Nothing to Grasp. She's a spiritual teacher and writer, with a background in Zen. But below I'll share some passages from her book that are closely akin to a central message in biologist Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined, where he…

Between Gurdjieff and Zen, I much prefer Zen

Wanting to read something different yesterday, I picked up my copy of P.D. Ouspensky's In Search of the Miraculous. Since that copy has a 1949 copyright date, it's a first edition of the book that was published after Ouspensky died in 1947. My mother, though not at all religious, was a fan of P.D. Ouspensky, who studied a form of Eastern mysticism (roughly speaking) taught by George Gurdjieff. I kept a few books of my mother's after she died. One was The Fourth Way by Ouspensky. I'm pretty sure In Search of the Miraculous also was her book, though it…

“The Rigor of Angels” ended up disappointing me

As noted in my previous post, I was disappointed when I got to the discussion of free will in William Egginton's book, The Rigor of Angels: Borges, Heisenberg, Kant, and the Ultimate Nature of Reality, and found that Egginton embraced the absurd notion much beloved by philosophers like himself that determinism and free will are somehow compatible. Hence, the term compatibilism for this nonsensical belief. It's nonsensical because it does away with the "free" in free will, since determinism holds that what came before this present moment determines how that moment unfolds. Where's the "free" in that? But I became…

Oh, no! The author of “The Rigor of Angels” is a compatibilist

Disappointment is part of life. Okay, a big part. Still, it hurt when I reached the Free Will chapter in the book by William Egginton that I'm enjoying a lot: The Rigor of Angels: Borges, Heisenberg, Kant, and the Ultimate Nature of Reality. Up to that point, Egginton impressed me with his writing ability, intelligence, and ability to weave the lives and teachings of a poet, physicist, and philosopher into a satisfying picture of what reality is all about. (One sentence summary of the book: we never learn what reality is, in itself, but how reality appears to us based…

Watch this video of Sapolsky talking about accepting no free will

Here's a thought-provoking video of Robert Sapolsky speaking about how difficult it is for him, and others, to experientially live as if free will doesn't exist, even though he's spent fifty years not believing in it. I've made the video start at this point of the interview. The next 20 minutes or so are interesting, as is the entire interview, since the conversation moves into atheism and other subjects. Enjoy, whether or not you agree with Sapolsky.

No free will is easily misunderstood. Some blog comments prove that.

I readily confess to being a no-free-will addict. However, I'd never join a 12-step program aimed at, um, freeing me from this addiction, because I consider it a good thing to embrace the reality of determinism instead of the illusion of free will. I've been feeding my taste for no-free-will for quite a few years. I've read every book published in English on this subject that I can find. Some of them have been read repeatedly. Most recently, I studied Robert Sapolsky's instant classic Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will closely, since Sapolsky has written the definitive critique…

Emergent properties can’t produce free will, says Sapolsky

I enjoyed Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, so much, I've been listening to You Tube interviews of Sapolsky while I do a workout every day with my Monkii 360 Core Training System (the Monkii ball and resistance bungees are an enjoyable way to exercise). His interview with Michael Shermer was interesting because Shermer had some compatibilist views about free will that Sapolsky strongly disagreed with. Compatibilism is a misguided attempt to save a form of free will by saying that even though our thoughts, actions, emotions and such are determined by causes, free will…

New Yorker review of Sapolsky’s “Determined” is a subtle look at free will

Because I liked Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, so much, when I saw that the November 13, 2023 issue of The New Yorker had a review of it, I was nervous that the reviewer, Nikhil Krishnan, would have a devastating criticism of the book that I couldn't ignore. I say this because The New Yorker has wonderfully erudite book reviews by highly talented writers. So I was pleased when it turned out that Krishnan had a subtle take on free will that managed to combine agreement with Sapolsky's thesis that determinism is how the…

Humans are much more complex than many people believe

I enjoy most of the comments left on my Church of the Churchless blog posts, the exceptions being from people who are preachy, closed-minded, or dogmatic (worst of all, preachily closed-minded dogmatic). So when I got a email message this morning from frequent commenter Appreciative Reader, who disagreed with my contention that not believing in free will implies not desiring retribution as a guiding principle in a justice system, leaving rehabilitation, deterrence, and protection of society as the core remaining principles, I told him that I'd convert his message to a comment, then respond to it in a blog post…

Emergent complexity helps explain how the brain works

I was planning to set aside Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, having finished it, including an appendix that I wrote about a few days ago. I called that post Neurons and synapses are what we are. That's absolutely true. If anyone doubts this, hire an unethical doctor to scoop out all of your neurons and synapses from your head and see if anything of you remains. (Spoiler alert: you'll surely be brain dead and almost certainly totally dead also.) But here's the obvious thing: we aren't just neurons and synapses. We're so much more.…

The joy of punishment is tough for even free will deniers to give up

At long last, I've almost finished reading Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will. Just have the final chapter to go.  The next to last chapter, "The Joy of Punishment," was both interesting and disturbing. Sapolsky uses history and psychological research to examine how and why we humans find so much satisfaction when a person is punished for something they've done. He goes into grisly detail about the "drawing and quartering" of Robert-Francois Damiens, who in 1757 stabbed King Louis XV of France with what was essentially a penknife, creating only a superficial wound.  Nonetheless, Damiens…

Robert Sapolsky’s overview of the first half of his book, Determined

Now that I've about three-fourths of the way through Robert Sapolsky's book, Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, I was going to attempt a summary of the first half of the book (the second half focuses on the implications of living without a belief in free will). Then I realized that the best person, by far, to summarize the initial part of Determined is the author himself. Sapolsky does this in a brief "Interlude" chapter. Below is most of that chapter. It should make pretty good sense on its own, though obviously Sapolsky is describing entire detailed chapters…

Chaos theory is cool, but it can’t save free will

As I make my way through Robert Sapolsky's lengthy (400 pages of text) book about the non-existence of free will, Determined, I become more and more impressed with both Sapolsky and what he has wrought. He's a terrific writer and thinker. His talent is reflected in the fact that he's a recipient of a MacArthur Foundation "Genius Grant." And his scientific expertise is evident by the approach he takes in Determined.  Usually non-fiction authors are content to make a strong case for their subject. Sapolsky does that in arguing that free will is an illusion. But he goes beyond in…

Nature’s seamlessness leaves no room for free will

One of the joys for me of maintaining this blog in good working order is also one of the frustrations. I enjoy seeing what people think of my posts via the comments they leave on them. But frequently I'll be amazed at how a fairly simple idea, which I view as essentially unarguable, is twisted into complex knots by commenters who are so eager to maintain a belief, they ignore the facts I've presented. Or, if the facts are recognized, they are shape-shifted into something other than what they actually are. Now, I readily admit that I'm guilty at times…

More on the illusion of free will, from Robert Sapolsky and me

I'm continuing to enjoy Robert Sapolsky's book Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, which I first wrote about a few days ago. The book is getting a lot of publicity, way more than any other book on this subject so far as I can tell.  Before I share what I said about the illusion of free will on my HinesSight blog yesterday, here's more from Sapolsky -- quotes from the end of his chapter "Where Does Intent Come From?" In the first chapter, I wrote about what is needed to prove free will, and this chapter has added…

I’m loving Determined, a great book about no free will

Thanks to a recent article in New Scientist, Is Free Will an Illusion?, I learned about two new books on this subject. The one that appealed to me most was Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will, by Robert M. Sapolsky -- a professor of biology, of neurology and neurological sciences, and of neurosurgery at Stanford. It arrived yesterday. I had no problem holding it up to take this photo, but I wanted to show how thick it was, 403 pages plus some appendices. I was worried that a book of this size could be heavy reading if the…