A CLUE TO THE PURPOSE

_{ENTROPY the state of EQUANIMITY. (purpose – 5)}

_{This blog concludes the discussion on the “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE”. This book was authored by Swami Vijnananand (S. V.) and published in December 1961. We shall see the brief excerpts from this book and try to summarize the conclusions}

_{REVIEW OF EARLIER BLOGS on ‘PURPOSE’:}

_{In the first blog titled} “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE Why and how of the universe” October 10’ 2013, _{we saw that while there are some theories on HOW of the Universe, WHY of the universe is not explained by science or any other discipline of knowledge. The conversation on the subject published by The Templeton foundation gives views of the experts, which we have reviewed it in details. The conclusion in brief is: “While the purpose of the universe may or may not be spelt out, every prudent individual should identify / know and live his life with meaningful purpose.}

_{The second blog “}CAUSALITY OF ACCIDENTS (PURPOSE - 2) Nature of 'Accidents'” of October 17’ 2013 _{is based on one chapter from the book under reference. Dealing in details with the so-called accidents, S. V rationally concludes – Every accident is related to deserving cause though beyond cognition at an individual plane. There are no accidents in nature. We may not know the purpose (i.e. intent or cause), but the being of the Universe cannot be considered as an accident.}

_{Blog 3 titled FREE WILL RESEARCH dated 22nd October’ 2013: This deals with the controversies and opposing views held by different camps of scientists, philosophers regarding the existence / non-existence off Free will. A project sponsored by Templeton Foundation is dealing with advance comprehensive research on the subject. Dr. Prof. Alfred Mele and some other experts in the field express a view that before any meaningful conclusions bridging the gaps can be drawn the acceptability of the ‘free will’ concept by all concerned based on the proper ‘definition’ is necessary.}

_{Blog 4} CAUSALITY, FREE WILL CONVERSATION dated 24th October’2013: Here _{we find S.V. explaining in simple terms the concepts of FREE WILL and CAUSALITY. The discussion appropriately bridges the relationship between the concepts with rational arguments.}

_{Chapter wise excerpts followed by summary:}

_{Chapter 1, "WHY" OF THE UNIVERSE}

_{Let it be straightway conceded that science scarcely aims at offering an absolutely trust worthy interpretation of the purpose of the universe. And at the same time, let it be added that not only science, but no branch of knowledge can legitimately enter in such vaunting (boastful) ambition. If all the thinkers sail in same boat, there is nothing wrong in remaining in the scientists’ camp, without having any inferiority complex. After all, science surpasses any other mode of investigation and it is unwise to argue that because science does not offer an all-embracing solution, a murky black-out is worth our vote. Science is no monopoly of a chosen few; its inferences and its laboratory are open to anyone, truly inspired. Einstein says, "I can think nothing, more objectionable than the idea of science for the scientists" Failures of science offer something which is always better than nothing. Science may not give us all the keys to the code of the universe, but there is no harm in accepting a clue to a part of it that is revealed to us, however microscopic it may be.}

_{Let every man know his own Purpose, purpose of the universe will take care of itself. A scientist observes, "There is more obscurity (uncertainty, vagueness) in people who propound that there is no purpose in the universe, and 'purposefully' fight throughout their life to expound this thesis. Sure enough, it is an abuse of human sagacity to turn a deaf ear to tickling hints of Nature, suggesting her definite purpose. For being enlightened about this purpose, scientific rationale is worth implementing. And if science declares its incapacity at a given moment; taken in right spirit; should assure us of its 'bona fide character' and unshaken courage.}

_{CHAPTER 2: FIRST CLUE OF SCIENCE AND CHAPTER 3: FALL OF CLASSICAL PHYSICS.}

_{It is false to suppose that science takes the root from Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo or Bacon and Newton. Science is not an invention by itself. It is rather a tool employed by any motivated animal. From time memorable, men too have been observing, memorizing the observation, synthesizing its results, on repeated experiments finding out common features in Nature's phenomenon and have been turning such Nature's manifestations as the model code of conduct. The primitive who first put the softly bright flame into service was no other than a scientist, and his bubbling, lively extreme joy after his first successful attempt could not be anyway less than that of Watt, the Wright Brothers and Max Planck when miraculous' success crowned them. Not until the seventeenth century, however, scientific fact-finding could make headway of a sizable proportion, to displace the mystifying dogmas of the awe-adoring masses in general. Geniuses like Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo labored throughout their lives under the shadow of fate that pounced upon Socrates, for sticking up to his own matured convictions.}

_{Since Maxwell's time itself, Newtonian mechanics was confronted with the initial challenges. Yet, concluding evidence was lacking in greater details, till the onset of the twentieth century. Max Planck first conceived and nursed new physics that leads to the great achievements by Einstein, Bohr and a number of others amongst whom Heisenberg takes away the laurels. Most certainly Heisenberg took new physics to new heights. He, in late thirties, ascertained the principle of uncertainty and as a consequence the deterministic attitude was obliged to give way. The new principle cautioned against the unwarranted optimism anent ability of a scientist to predict in the orthodox way. And yet more, in an attempt to fix up the position of a particle itself,} control over knowledge of its velocity is lost and hence the researcher is left in a curious quandary. It was first discovered by Planck that the matter _{travels 'discontinuously'.}

_{CHAPTER FOUR -- Limitations of Quantum}

Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory starts with a paradox. It starts from the fact that we describe our experiments in the terms of classical physics and at the same time from the knowledge that these concepts do not fit nature accurately. The tension between these two starting, points is the root of the statistical character of quantum theory. Therefore, it has sometimes been suggested that one should depart from the classical concepts altogether and that a radical change in the concepts used for describing the experiments might possibly lead back to a non-statistical, completely objective description of nature.

This suggestion, however, rests upon a misunderstanding. The concepts of classical physics are just a refinement of the concepts of daily life and are an essential part of the language which forms the basis of all natural science. Our actual situation in science is such that we do use the classical concepts for the description of the experiments, and it was the problem of quantum theory to find theoretical interpretation of the experiments on this basis. There is no use in discussing what could be done if we were other beings than we are. At this point we have to realize, as von Weizsacker has put it, that 'Nature is earlier than man, but man is earlier than natural science'. The first part of the sentence justifies classical physics, with its ideal of complete objectivity. The second part tells us why we cannot escape the paradox of quantum theory, namely, the necessity of using the classical concepts.

CHATTER FIVE - Copenhagen Mishandles Mind

Heisenberg favors the wave picture in the most un-equivocal terms, being more convenient. He says, “By means of its frequencies and intensities the radiation gives information about the oscillating charge distribution in the atom, and there the wave picture comes much nearer to the truth than the particle picture". Clearly then, to Heisenberg, non-matter presents a dominating, convenient and basic structure of the universe.

On this ground Marxist (materialists) scientists bitterly assail Copenhagen interpretation. Blochinzev slashes out, "Among the different idealists' trends in contemporary physics, the so-called Copenhagen School is the most reactionary".

One must be bold enough. I have neither to take sides nor any offence is meant to idealists or Heisenberg, for whom I have profound respect. Nevertheless the Copenhagen School invites a diatribe (bitter attack, violent criticism) for their attitude of sitting on the fence.

Various authors in their own words are thus far exhaustively reproduced so that there should be no accusation they are misrepresenting. But, after all, an open minded scientist has to make up his own mind about his own declaration of faith. For instance, if physics deals with matter which itself leaves no track and chooses to substitute a different basic structure, one does not know what remains of physics. And if nothing remains of it, one must be bold enough to acknowledge such a predicament perplexity, not tacitly (silently, with unspoken words) but expressed.

Scientists subscribe to mind as non-material entity. To begin with Heisenberg himself yields accord to psyche, being independent of matter. On page 28 of Heisenberg's 'Physics and Philosophy', in the introduction by Prof. Northrop he says, "In any event, two things seem clear and make what Heisenberg says on these matters exceedingly important. First, the principle of complementarity and the present validity of the Cartesian and common-sense concepts of body and mind stand and fall together. Second, it may be that both these notions are merely convenient stepladders which should now be, or must eventually be, thrown away. Even so, in the case of the theory of mind at least, the stepladder will have to remain until by its use we find the more linguistically exact and empirically satisfactory theory that will permit us to throw the Cartesian language away". Prof. Northrop in the next sentence itself says that “the only difficulty which disturbs Heisenberg is diverse notions on mind and lack of scientific language that can describe it”.

'What Mind Means' which is another treatise in this series (New Way series), aims at such synthesis. What really remains to be proved should be the responsibility of Heisenberg himself. It is his quest (investigation) that has led humanity to the new height of knowledge and its consequent corollaries (obvious deductions) can hardly be evaded.

Heisenberg says that the laws of physics do not hold good in a living man (the only difference being existence of mind in this case) and he holds it more true in psychology, "If we go beyond biology and include psychology in the discussion, then there can scarcely be any doubt but that the concepts of physics, chemistry, and evolution together will not be sufficient to describe the facts. On this point the existence of quantum theory has changed our attitude from what was believed in the nineteenth century. During that period some scientists were inclined to think that the psychological phenomena could ultimately be explained on the basis of physics and chemistry of the brain. From the quantum-theoretical point of view there is no reason for such an assumption. We would, in spite of the fact that the physical events in the brain belong to the psychic phenomena, not expect that these could be sufficient to explain them."

Physics deals with the matter and if the laws of matter do not apply to an entity, it hardly remains material, at the given moment. Heisenberg is a rational scientist and he had to come to the conclusion that the concept of non-material covers a very wide range. He himself admits concept of God, Soul, and Mind etc. in science, on page 172 of his treatise; yet, in the next paragraph itself, he adheres to scientific method howsoever limited utility it offers.

This apparent contradiction disappears if mind is taken to be identical with non- matter, whether in wave or in other manifestations. It is worth reiteration that I am not dogmatic in these assertions; but unless science throws further light on this problem, there is no other way but to accept that the mind is itself identical with any “motion”, or any "cause" as such, if the word identical is not pressed too far and kept open for further classification, in view of present state of knowledge.

CHAPTER SIX Causation and Mind

Cause and effect relationship subsists throughout Nature, howsoever conceptually.

Newtonian causality has never gained ground, unimpeachably; while quantum has never denied true essence of causal code. Causality, though scientists are not fully aware of its details in all its perspective, remains a valid law. In fact, quantum renders due respect to causality.

Measurability is put off the scent (gives wrong or confusing information), in the new situation. The limitation reflects on our own to trace back 'mind' behind the matter. Normally, an ideal measurability in minutest details sounds superfluous. Effect being a measure of its effective cause is utterly undeniable, howsoever perplexing a picture the whole process presents to the imperfect analyzer, examiner.

CHAPTER SEVEN Causation and Disease

Should the medical authority be inclined to calculate upon unalterable authenticity of cause and effect relationship, he cannot cavil (find fault unnecessarily) at 'effect' exclusively having an internal origin. The man himself is the cause of disease, whatever its nature and in spite of unknowability (ignorance) of its immediate discernible (distinguishable) cause. The premise has been discussed in four volumes of this (new way) series and particularly in 'Cure without Medicine' and 'The Rich, Ambitious and Healthy'; though it calls for further elucidation, in as much as the problem touches causation in human stride. It is true that to prove disease in each case having a within-bound root amounts to a formidable task save (except, but) for theory of causation. On endorsing the theory, unchallengeable on the level of gross matter, in any event, no extra evidence is needed.

CHAPTER 8: Nature of 'Accidents'

Are there accidents in Nature? If not then the ‘causality’ prevails. We may not know the cause at each occasion, for every effect. If being of universe is the ‘effect’ then there must be a cause behind it, this is a logical conclusion. Science or any other discipline of knowledge is not being able to detect it would not rule out its existence. This chapter discusses the nature of so-called accidents.

Necessarily then, every effect-disease, accident, dis- pleasure is related to a deserving cause, though beyond cognition, at an individual Plane. There are no accidents or co-incidences in nature although we may not be able to trace the cause in every occurrence of such nature.

Chapter 9: Clue to Purpose

If I leave the ambitious project of penetrating through the purpose of universe, and instead explore the unknown regions of myself and elevate the inner core, indiscerptible universe also to that extent stands elevated, enlightened. Such an ultra-stoical (extra calm) philosophy may be faithfully followed by a few, conveniently ignored by some and indignantly criticized by many, who would be directly hit by its tenets. But, convinced of my opinions, beliefs, there remains no real adversary from my point of view and as for my reprove, he too learns in the process of launching on me a carping but one-sided attack.

Threshold of Heisenberg era has opened new vista in the world of knowledge. The principle of indeterminacy has helped us diligently discover the source of living animal in non-material form and it has assisted us to recognize that the "living" is not any quality or development of matter.

If a dead body is kicked with dishonor; the effects will follow merely the laws of matter. The rate at which the skeleton is displaced can be determined. Before the body breathes its last, even the gesture of a kick reacts swiftly and stubbornly. Well, if the offended is a coward he may make a swift move and honorable retreat. In any event the reaction eludes predictability when something more than mere matter is under consideration. This element of indeterminacy is revealed by new quantum mechanics. It has helped us to cogitate beyond the notion of matter and give due respect, both to mind and matter.

Our talk of supremacy of mind is a mere balderdash to say the least. The capricious mind entertains ego, greed, affection, anger and these waves are cited as proofs to establish mind's superiority over matter. Thinkers of all faiths lay stress on evil attributes of such exciting palpitations and recommend voluntarily accepted quiescence (quietness, in-activity). Indeed, matter is an exemplary model for such an object, since matter has no passionate fidgets (uneasiness, impatience), which the languid (slack, slow) mind proudly claims. Matter is not attached to mind it is the other way round. The law of indeterminacy, therefore, has not only helped to lay the distinction between mind and matter, but also to focus our attention on the cause of indeterminacy, which takes its root from extra- mundane entity, mind.

This state of affairs, everyone slavishly dancing at the beck and call of mind, does not seem to be covetable. If each owner of personality defers his oscillations and dispassionately broods over for a moment, 'New Way philosophy' seeks to place before the layman, the great importance of both indeterminacy and causality and tersely indicates how these laws should be understood by the elated (very happy or joyful) individual. The might of neutrality and silence properly perceived this synthesis brought about should be conductive.

The principle of entropy, Barnet calls it the only principle of old physics, yet unchallenged, asserts that in time to come, there will be no energy-transformation and consequently living as seen presently, will draw to a close. Not waiting for the imposed extinction, and instead of continuing to suffer under the false label of pleasure, is it not worth-while aiming at a 'personal entropy’ and reach the state where no energy-transformations are motivated, at least in the internal realm? Pragmatic philosophers idealize detachment as a principle, par excellence, so echoes Einstein and so trust the celebrated scientists.

  

Lecomte du Nouy, in his work, 'Human Destiny' (Nobel Prize Winner Millikan puts it in the first three of the century), categorically affirms, "The source of all evil is in the very substance of man. To extirpate (remove totally) this evil we must neutralize not only the instincts inherited from our animal ancestors, but the superstitions transmitted by our human ancestors, the excrescences of an uncontrolled mental activity, of misguided ambitions, and replace them with the sense of human dignity".

My comments … 

It would be a worth proposition for inquisitive readers to refer to the original book. My perception based on the study reveals the summary as follows:

Chapter 1 tells about the impossibility on the part of Science or any other branch of knowledge to answer WHY of the universe. Without bothering for the purpose of the Universe it may be better idea to find own purpose. Nature signals some hints to indicate its purpose.

Chapter 2 to 5 take a brief historical review of science up to the stage of the ‘principle of uncertainty’ and draw a conclusion that the theoretical existence of non- material form of the reality has to be accepted by science which is normally called as ‘mind’.

Chapter 6 and 7 give detail analysis and deductions supporting the concept of CAUSALITY prevailing in nature. We may not know the purpose (i.e. cause), but the being of the Universe cannot be ruled as an accident. There are no accidents or co-incidences in nature although we may not be able to trace the cause in every occurrence of such nature; concludes chapter 8.

Chapter 9 points toward ENTROPY as the clue of Purpose. As per the present knowledge the universe is destined to reach the stage of entropy as it will end its journey. Entropy is to be considered as stage of equanimity instead of ‘highest disorder’. A human being; also a part of the universe can endeavor to reach a stage of entropy within by trying to achieve a steady, balanced state of mind. All great thinkers of humanity recommend such an action.

The purpose of the existence of the universe is not known to the science but the end is known as a stage of no motion i.e. entropy. That is a stage of equality as elaborately explained by S.V. on rational concepts. If a human being tries to develop the attitude of equality within his mind then his efforts will be in alignment with the journey of universe. Possibly at such a stage of mind he may be able to know the real purpose of the universe.

Vijay R. Joshi.

CAUSALITY, FREE WILL CONVERSATION

CONCEPTS SIMPLIFIED (Purpose - 4)

For three centuries stretched between Newton and Heisenberg, causality ruled scientific thought in full glory, scientific method as synonymous with it. Curiously though, during this long span of time opponents of causality were never defeated (vanquished) completely. There is no reason why now in their turn, believers of causality should not hold their fort in the present period of so-called suspense, after the advent of Heisenberg-era.

For the benefit of a layman an imaginary discussion between a causal law believer and free will believer is reproduced below.

Free-will is not synonymous with the ‘principle of indeterminacy’ in scientific terminology though the latter is supposed to have scientifically allowed existence of free will. As Eddington says, commenting on situation in science after 1927, "Science withdraws its moral opposition to free will".

CONVERSATION

Free Will Believer: I feel allured to shoot one of the white featured birds on the top of the tree. It looks as if an inspiration, a result of 'free-will' that I enjoy.

Causal Law Believer: From where comes free will? Has it no source?

F.W.B.: I do not know. We all are in dark about the first cause.

C.L.B.: That is so. There is no opposition from any quarter, worth mention for 'first cause' being taken for granted. We are at present concerned about your immediate origin of free-will that induces will to kill.

F.W.B.: -Possibly, in the present case, I am pressed to touch the target to test my capacity of shooting accurately. However, others may do it with entirely different intentions, say, for eating it.

C.L.B.: Let us pursue your case as given. Your intense desire at aiming at the bird springs from a cause Mind. Eventually your individual mind turns out to be a specific cause of the proposed shooting.

F.W.B.: Do you insist that I shall shoot?

C, L.B.: Yes, as based on your own statement (averment).

F.W.B.: Then I don’t shoot to put you in the wrong.

C.L.B.: Be that so. I will hold that your ‘individual mind' were not to shoot in the next few moments. Have I not made myself explicit beforehand, admitting that my assertion is based on your own declaration?

F.W.B.: Your stand seems to be soapy. You change as it suits your purpose.

.

C.L.B.: Yes, because you yourself change. I believe in causal relation, but I do not claim predictability of each event. If I had known all the components of your mind from its existence, in all its details the prediction was possible. But such knowledge in all details remains beyond human comprehension. That does not mean uncertain nature of action. I moot a question. Why hanker (restless desire) after shooting?

F.W.B.: To kill the nice little bird for shooting practice. .

C.L.B.: So you endorse a relation between your action and the desired result. Thus, if your present freak of will causes to produce a correlated ‘effect', logically you present 'will to kill' in its role as an effect up with a 'cause' in the unknown past.

 

F.W.B.: But supposing I shoot at the top of the tree, I wonder whether the specific bird chosen as a target in my mind can get a correct hit or otherwise.

C.L.B.: Very true. That can be understood, given, as I said all the authentic record of your personality, in its true perspective. In the absence of the relevant account, "causality" as a logical mode of Nature's operations, need be only course of deductions.

F.W.B.: Do you vote against individuals, possessing free-will at all?

C. L. B.: They have free will. Each one has a free will to understand causal laws, according to one's own individual way.

F.W.B.: If causality has created my individuality, has it no omnipotence (God like infinite power) to dictate me, instead of leaving things to my free will?

C.L.B.: Causality has not created you. Nature has created you or not obstructed your creation. But as we all rightly hold, we can never fathom into the depths of Nature directly, nevertheless, nature of Nature can be apprised of, through the inklings (indication or hint) she gives on her own. Causality is merely a "process of Nature", a primary manifestation which assists us to build a coherent picture of objective reality.

F.W.B.: This assumption absolves me from any charge of cruelty, in the event I successfully hit at my target, it is indeed the bird that invites death.

C. L. B.: It must be presumed that the bird has invited death. In process of evolution, death has played a part of heightening (increasing) the value of organism. Death, at most of the stages, has been paid as a price of a given development. In the opinion of Dr. Walker, every sensation of pain makes the concerned organism wiser. If that is so, approach of death; that we often suppose / consider inflict piercing torture; ought to be taken to shelve out still higher knowledge. Well. This need be made clear in great details, as it is expounded (stated in details) in "New Way'' series. For the present, we can but suppose the bird itself to have caused its own death, through you. Rather the bird also was the ‘party to the event’, that is how I would like to put it, since my statement must be objective.

As for the charge of cruelty against you, that again would vary according to observers. A sportsman, would applaud for the fine shooting, a member of 'animal-protection committee' will report to a police, an over-passionate pseudo philosopher will- tend to accuse you of barbarism and a science lover like me would just keep quiet. All happenings, actions and reactions, have bearing upon respective causes and those causes develop growing complexity as we attempt to trace it back step by step. In the ultimate analysis, it all presents a perplexing picture. The more we hanker after 'remote causes’ there universal causality becomes our unmistakable guide.

F.W.B.: But you have already declared inability of setting back to first cause. Eventually, we become helpless spectators to a predetermined course of events. Ultimately you seem to suggest that whatever be the first cause, rational man at this level of understanding gives up all his action and struggle. This looks an utterly pessimistic picture. End of the world, virtually.

C.L.B.: Remember, that there was no man on this earth a million years back and it is likely that there will be no man on this globe in distant future, says science. I recommend you to go through the literature on evolution, geology and thermodynamics. Ignoring these theoretical postulates, your anxiety that causality shall demolish prospects of true enjoyment and useful action are far from having valid foundation, in the immediate future.

Give a proposal to ten budding youths who earn a specific sum per month, that they should accept an equivalent sum as a pension and sit quiet completely under compulsion. A minority of them will accept it, the majority would choose to act and earn. And those who would prefer an idle income may continue to work for work’s sake because action is taken to be mental oxygen for them. Assuming however two youngsters of the lot appreciate causal laws in its true perspective, the frame of reference changes. Not that the enlightened twin can abruptly stop action; they however shall utilize their action-and enthusiasm in promoting the unimpeachable (above suspicion) laws of causality. Devoid (not possessing) of any craving for material gain, they are hardly bound by their new stride of action. In due course, they may reduce themselves to inaction, which having a potential to inspire others can ever (or never) be termed as inaction.

F.W.B.: This holds out no charm.

C. l. B.: Not the charms, but causal laws are under discussion. Objectivity holds well to a hair, whether it means a treat or a trial for you.

F.W.B.: Causal laws in philosophical sense do concern themselves with pleasure. They strictly pronounce, "Good begets good".

C.L.B.: This no doubt reflects on a state of development at a very high level. Yet, in the last analysis, till 'good' in the maxims speaks of 'good action', the law that unavoidably follows is: 'Action begets reaction'. In the realm of ultimate’s, 'good' and 'bad' carry little sense, but the laws of motion rule supreme as the 'process' of Nature'. From here should science and philosophy go hand in hand.

F.W.B.: If every action is bound by causal laws chances of upward development are negativated (denied).

C.L.B.: In the days of 'relativity', such 'one directional' phenomenon finds no place.

F. W.B.: It reduces to this predicament (unpleasant difficulty): every action of my personality is predetermined, as per causal process and so I should submit to any evil dispensation (exemption from rule) Cool and collected, I should continue with the work on hand- Is this what do you mean?

C. L. B.: Mostly so. Everything is predetermined in a sense every action initiates reaction. Your longing for effect to be -produced by present action renders itself invalid; unless you imbibe belief in your present 'will' having a previous cause. Understanding of this characteristic, absolute phenomenon makes you feel 'action' itself to be redundant. You consequently quell (put an end to) the new action and invite no new reaction.

F. W. B.: But whether I would rest on the oars (cease to make efforts) or not, again depends on my personality. If I am destined to realize what you propound, I will, otherwise not.

C.L.B: This statement itself amounts to encomium (expressing higher praise) of causal laws. Most wonderful part of the situation is: Causal law believer's decision to indefinitely differ action itself involves free will. On the other hand, when a free will believer wishes to cause all his actions by his free will he essentially hails causality in practice, in as much as he expects every action to meet a desired reaction. The outcome is, the free-will follower, as a necessity adheres to causal laws, which causal law believer esteem as a code. In effect, causality excels.

F. W. B. We have no grudge for not obtaining the desired result, because we believe in probability only.

C.L.B.: It certainly does not mean that an abortive attempt evokes no depression in the free will believer. His adjustment with a frustration is much the same “as action of readjustment" of mind, after his cheerfully optimistic hope of probable fortunate stroke terminates without producing result. This action obeys laws of motion and so of causality. About probability I have already explained above as to how probability must be a component of total causality though unknown to us.

F.W.B.: But then, as I have argued if everything is predetermined so is my moment of knowing causality of your conviction. 

C.L.B.: For me, I hold in mind (harbor) a notion that all of us are believers of existence of causality. Some scientists rule out 'causality' because predictability of the events has been beyond the reach of experiments. They indirectly do concede causality to be one of the alternative possibilities. A probability theory cannot discard causality as one of the probabilities to be true law of Nature, if probability seeks to retain spirit of the theory. A probability believer finds it impossible to observe Nature in its totality or to its microscopic details, as he himself admits. But then how are you justified in being dogmatic about the unseen process, particularly in face of the fact that a very reliable section of scientist - never mind esoterically (secretly or confidentially) in your opinion - adheres to causality?

F.W.B.: Assuming I yield an assent to the theory by my free-will just now-and don’t shoot the bird then the bird that I was to kilt, will miss the predetermined event.

C.L.B.: We have already agreed upon the complex mode of Nature's innermost features. There can evolve a number of alternatives,

First: That the bird may have been destined to miss a probable hit.

Second: Process of Nature might have provided the bird with an alternative self- punishment. Third: Even on your accepting causality at the moment, you may open fire, as death of the flying animal by itself carries no special meaning and torture for you after realization.

Fourth: Even after self-realization, certain time for adjustment may be required. So you may choose to go ahead with your hunting, at the present juncture.

Fifth: Other mechanism inherent in nature might bring about adjustments, in keeping with her main Process, though the details of this process are lacking and the lacuna lies in human limitations.

F.W.B.: Without knowing the process and entire design of Nature, why should causality be taken as a faithful guide?

C.L.B.: Because it is inexorable (unalterable) and more logical. Besides, admittedly indeterminacy also involves ignorance of total objectivity. So, at least you should have no objection in embracing causality, on this plea alone.

F.W.B: Well, after this long argument, if I remain dogmatic about free-will, will it not repudiate (the authority of the) causality- since all your labor on me would cause no effect on me?

C.L.B.: Your taking part in the polemic (controversial argument) lends support to causality, in as much as you wish to "effect" change in me by the 'cause' of your argument. So far as the endeavor to convert you is concerned, I had myself admitted that change in you can keep pace with your own personality and not beyond.

Vijay R. Joshi.

Source: Appendix A to the Book "PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE'. Author Swami Vijnananand. (December 1961), with minor changes. 

FREE WILL RESEARCH

Science and Philosophy on FREE WILL (Purpose – 3)
 

Scientists think they can prove that free will is an illusion. Philosophers are urging them to think again.

In 2007, Haynes, a neuroscientist at the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin, put people into a brain scanner in which a display screen flashed a succession of random letters. He told them to press a button with either their right or left index fingers whenever they felt the urge, and to remember the letter that was showing on the screen when they made the decision. The experiment used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to reveal brain activity in real time as the volunteers chose to use their right or left hands. The results were quite a surprise.

"The first thought we had was 'we have to check if this is real'," says Haynes. "We came up with more sanity checks than I've ever seen in any other study before."

The conscious decision to push the button was made about a second before the actual act, but the team discovered that a pattern of brain activity seemed to predict that decision by as many as seven seconds. Long before the subjects were even aware of making a choice, it seems, their brains had already decided.

As humans, we like to think that our decisions are under our conscious control — that we have free will. Philosophers have debated that concept for centuries, and now Haynes and other experimental neuroscientists are raising a new challenge. They argue that consciousness of a decision may be a mere biochemical afterthought, with no influence whatsoever on a person's actions. According to this logic, they say, free will is an illusion. "We feel we choose, but we don't," says Patrick Haggard, a neuroscientist at University College London.

You may have thought you decided whether to have tea or coffee this morning, for example, but the decision may have been made long before you were aware of it.

Philosophers aren't convinced that brain scans can demolish free will so easily. Some have questioned the neuroscientists' results and interpretations, arguing that the researchers have not quite grasped the concept that they are ridiculing. Many more don't engage with scientists at all.

Neuroscientists and philosophers are talking about different subjects, whilst they believe they are talking about the same thing. Such a remark is passed by Walter Glannon, a philosopher at the University of Calgary in Canada, who has interests in neuroscience, ethics and free will.

There are some signs that this is beginning to change. This month, a lot of projects will get under way as part of Big Questions in Free Will, a four-year US$4.4-million program funded by the John Templeton Foundation in, Pennsylvania, which supports research bridging theology, philosophy and natural science. Some say that, with refined experiments, neuroscience could help researchers to identify the physical processes underlying conscious intention and to better understand the brain activity that precedes it. And if unconscious brain activity could be found to predict decisions perfectly, the work really could confuse the notion of free will. A possibility that what are now correlations could at some point become causal connections between brain mechanisms and behaviors is expressed by Glannon (philosopher). In such a situation it would threaten the concept of free will by philosophers, he further feels.

Pointing out that Haynes and his team could predict a left or right button press with only 60% accuracy at best the critics raised their objection. Although better than chance, this isn't enough to claim that you can see the brain making its mind up before conscious awareness, argues Adina Roskies, a neuroscientist and philosopher who works on free will at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. Besides, "all it suggests is that there are some physical factors that influence decision-making", which shouldn't be surprising. Philosophers who know about the science, she adds, don't think this sort of study is good evidence for the absence of free will, because the experiments are caricatures (mockery, distortion) of decision-making. Even the seemingly simple decision of whether to have tea or coffee is more complex than deciding whether to push a button with one hand or the other.

Philosophers question the assumptions underlying such interpretations. "Part of what's driving some of these conclusions is the thought that free will has to be spiritual or involve souls or something," says Al Mele, a philosopher at Florida State University. If neuroscientists find unconscious neural activity that drives decision-making, the troublesome concept of mind as separate from body disappears, as doe’s free will. This 'dualist' conception of free will is an easy target for neuroscientists to knock down, says Glannon (philosopher). "Neatly dividing mind and brain makes it easier for neuroscientists to drive a wedge between them," he adds. (Spoil the relationship between two)

The trouble is, most current philosophers don't think about free will like that, says Mele. Many are materialists — believing that everything has a physical basis, and decisions and actions come from brain activity. So scientists are weighing in on a notion that philosophers consider irrelevant.

Nowadays, says Mele (philosopher Alfred Mele, professor at Florida State University, having a long standing research on the concept of FREE WILL); the majority of philosophers are comfortable with the idea that people can make rational decisions in a deterministic universe. They debate the interplay between freedom and determinism — the theory that everything is predestined, either by fate or by physical laws. But Roskies (Adina Roskies, Department of Philosophy, Dartmouth College, Hanover), says that results from neuroscience can't yet settle that debate.

They may speak to the predictability of actions, but not to the issue of determinism.

Neuroscientists also sometimes have misconceptions about their own field, says Michael Gazzaniga, a neuroscientist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In particular, scientists tend to see preparatory brain activity as proceeding step wise, one bit at a time, to a final decision. He suggests that researchers should instead think of processes working in parallel, in a complex network with interactions happening continually. The time at which one becomes aware of a decision is thus not as important as some have thought.

There are conceptual issues — and then there is semantics (study of meaning or interpretation). "What would really help is if scientists and philosophers could come to an agreement on what free will means," says Glannon. Even within philosophy, definitions of free will don't always match up. Some philosophers define it as the ability to make rational decisions in the absence of coercion (threatening). Some definitions place it in cosmic (universal) context: at the moment of decision, given everything that's happened in the past, it is possible to reach a different decision. Others stick to the idea that a non-physical 'soul' is directing decisions.

Neuroscience could contribute directly to tidying up (bring order, straighten) definitions, or adding an empirical (experimentally provable) dimension to them. It might lead to a deeper, better understanding of what freely willing something involves, or refine views of what conscious intention is, says Roskies.

Mele is directing the Templeton Foundation project that is beginning to bring philosophers and neuroscientists together. "I think if we do a new generation of studies with better design, we'll get better evidence about what goes on in the brain when people make decisions," he says.

Philosophers are willing to admit that neuroscience could one day trouble the concept of free will. Imagine a situation (philosophers like to do this) in which researchers could always predict what someone would decide from their brain activity, before the subject became aware of their decision. "If that turned out to be true, that would be a threat to free will," says Mele. Still, even those who have perhaps prematurely proclaimed (openly declare) the death of free will agree that such results would have to be replicated on many different levels of decision-making. Pressing a button or playing a game is far removed from (very different from) making a cup of tea, running for president or committing a crime.

The practical effects of demolishing free will are hard to predict. Biological determinism doesn't hold up as a defense in law. Legal scholars aren't ready to ditch (discard) the principle of personal responsibility. "The law has to be based on the idea that people are responsible for their actions, except in exceptional circumstances," says Nicholas Mackintosh, director of a project on neuroscience and the law; run by the Royal Society in London.

Mele is hopeful that other philosophers will become better acquainted with the science of conscious intention. And where philosophy is concerned, he says, scientists would do well to soften their stance. "It's not as though the task of neuroscientists who work on free will has to be to show there isn't any."

It seems that the areas which require immediate attention are:

Even within philosophy, definitions of free will don't always match up

Agreement on what free will means does not exist.

Definition of FREE WILL not spelled.

Neuroscientists also sometimes have misconceptions about their own field

Bringing philosophers and neuroscientists together and developing approach toward each other with softened, positive attitude. (Ego less approach to search the Truth).

The will (desire) of the Templeton foundation to progress the work on FREE WILL thus appears to depends upon the attitude (intent) of the academicians in defining the terms of reference and developing a positive approach towards the problem with the aim for the search of TRUTH and not nurturing the subjective interests.

The ‘desire’, ‘intention’, ‘attitude’, (and also ego), to a layman they are the faculties of Mind. Academicians are not able to define MIND in spite of research of decades. Without defining MIND would it be possible to define free will?

Vijay R. Joshi.

Source: Neuroscience vs. Philosophy http://archive.is/a0QeG

CAUSALITY OF ACCIDENTS (PURPOSE - 2)

Nature of 'Accidents' 

If being of universe is the ‘effect’ then there must be a cause behind it.

Are there accidents in Nature? If not then the ‘causality’ prevails. We may not know the cause at each occasion, for every effect. If being of universe is the ‘effect’ then there must be a cause behind it, this is a logical conclusion. Science or any other discipline of knowledge is not being able to detect it would not rule out its existence. Book “PURPOSE OF THE UNIVERSE” written by Swami Vijnananand (s. v.), published in December 1961 discusses the nature of so-called accidents. Here are some excerpts:

'Accidents'

Suddenly, a railway engine is derailed and it costs a passenger his precious left eye. An automobile runs across a pavement (side walk), running over a happy-go-lucky stretching himself on the seashore. An innocent infant is torn to pieces in a house-collapse. Such flabbergasting (mystifying, confusing) stupid occurrences certainly call for further analysis, before being accepted as purely having an internal origin.

(l) Institute the inquiry from the other side.

How would the skeptic explain narrow escape of a blessedly lucky who was scheduled to travel by the train derailed later and who was saved by his last-minute cancellation? A close friend of the happy-go-lucky, prey to the accident on the shore had refused to accompany him; since 'accidentally' he had injured his left thigh, while walking the stairs. In the dwindling tenement (rental house / room) that collapsed, another family drove out of its cell its naughty child, a few seconds before the melodramatic disaster, resulting in hair-breadth escape of the child.

I A) What prohibits the conclusion then that the fortunate falling in second category evaded their doomsday accidentally which virtually makes no advance than substituting the word 'accident' for the notion: 'innate (natural, born in mind) cause?

1 B) How can capricious (erratic, fanciful) 'accident' favoring the concerned be construed? For example, does the injury of thigh that prevented the fortunate from visiting the sea-beach by accident 'accidentally' save him?

1 C) Reuter News Agency released news in Express dated 5-3-60, concerning Agadir, a Moroccan city which suffered an earthquake. It reads, "A woman giving birth to a baby was uncovered last night by rescue workers from under the debris of her home in Agadir, which was turned into a heap of rubble by Monday's earthquake. The woman had been trapped under the ruins of her home three days ago. The mother and child were both saved"-

1 D) Implied import (meaning, sense, significance) of accident conveys hypothetically unwelcome situation, which indeed is invalidated in cases mentioned in the foregoing. A small 'accident' eschews (avoids) more monstrous mishaps can hardly be a prudent reasoning. It is confounding (confusing) to draw a moral that naughty children help themselves to escape the house wreckage. No amount of sophistry (apparently plausible but false, misleading argument) lends hand in absolving (exempting, relieving) internal 'cause' of a victim in any predicament (dangerous situation).

(2) Again, in an all devouring earthquake a new built mansion may collapse and who knows, an old hut stands chances to survive. If the former is an accident, the latter also is one. Eventually, the achievement seldom goes beyond rechristening (giving another name to) the word 'causality'. Once the law is established, it is undesirable to change the connotation (implication, intention) as it is suitable to momentary subjective requirements.

(3) Continuing with the uncontrolled truck that smashed our friend, resting on the shore, in the neoteric (new, recent) perspective.

3 A) On the road, coming to a dead stop suddenly, if the engine totally fails to move an inch, the car gets no opportunity to touch any object and no 'accident' takes place.

3 B) But imagine the car is out of control without coming to a dead stop and directs itself to the pavement, fabricated of cement slabs, say of 150 pounds approximately equal to a well-built adult. Over-running the slab, if the automobile checks itself, there is no damage and no accident as such.

3 C) if the car proceeds and slightly damages a lamp-post without being noticed, the motor owner has another opportunity to avert accusations and abuses.

3 D) In the event of the uncontrollable vehicle continuing its march; things shape differently. Our Hedonist friend literally basking in the sunshine, on the pleasing seashore, is given a death-blow. Curiously the cement slab and the happy-go-lucky both weigh 150 pounds; in case of the latter collision, the incident is branded as accident. The obvious reason for man to give way is his own frail texture (weak body frame). Again, in the last analysis, the subject comes in the picture.

(4) Innumerable instances substantiate erroneous implication of our notion about accident.

Two representative fatal cases should give us authentic clue. Re-examine accidental death of our friend on the sea-beach where 'causal agent’ is taken to be an unchecked automobile and compare it with another casualty to typhoid where the causal agent is typhus bacterium.

Four features distinguish the accidental occurrence.

 Unwantedness

 Unexpectedness

 Unconsciousness

 Internal weakness of the subject

Properly analyzed in bacterial invasion the same features come into play.

Firstly, none wants bacterium to switch on an attack.

Secondly, nobody ever expects it. (The first differs from second, where the latter lays stress on unpredictability).

Thirdly, the would-be sufferer never consciously (in its usual sense) allows intake of typhoid germs in the liquid.

Lastly, it is the internal weakness of the victim that brings about the general breaking up.

Medical authorities and bacteriologists substantiate the habitual belief that the bacterium often peacefully lives in the metabolism and it is branded hostile only when the constitution itself undergoes deterioration. It is pertinent to note that the metabolism in relation to microbe is designated as 'host' in technical phraseology (verbal expression).

The mute guest embarks in for a warm shelter. The bewildered host himself unfortunately turns hostile and employing scorched earth policy (strategy which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area), the scared coward commits suicide in the name of (a poor) bacterium, the entity that lacked means for subsistence.

Accident looks to be measure of human ignorance or ego since in the name of accident, humanity struggles hard to keep back inherent shifts and shames.

(5) Thinkers certainly withhold support to misnomers like chance, accident, mishap, and so on. Darwin accepts CAUSALITY.

Science had yet to un-riddle (understand) some of the primary mysteries in the days of Darwin, which often over powered him. Nevertheless, he invariably depreciated 'chance' in its orthodox sense.

To put it in his words' "In the case of every species, many different checks, acting at different periods of life, and during different seasons or years, probably come into play; some check or some few being generally the most potent; but all will concur in determining the average number or even the existence of the species. In some cases it can be shown that widely different checks act on the same species in different districts. When we look at the plants and bushes clothing an entangled bank, we are tempted to attribute their proportional numbers and kinds to what we call chance".

About external conditions affecting internal he says, "It is very difficult to decide how far changed conditions, such as of climate, food etc., have acted in a definite manner. There is reason to believe that in the course of time the effects have been greater than can be proved by clear evidence. But we may safely conclude that the innumerable complex co-adaptations of structure, which we see throughout nature between various organic beings, cannot be attributed simply to such action. In the following cases, the conditions seem to have produced some slight definite effect: E. Forbes asserts that shells at their southern limit, and when living in shallow water, are more brightly colored than those of the same species from further north or from a greater depth; but this certainly does not always hold good. Mr. Gould believes that birds of the same species are more brightly colored under a clear atmosphere than when living near the coast or on islands, and Wollaston is convinced that residence near the sea affects the colors of insects. Moquin-Tandon gives a list of plants which, when growing at the sea-shore, have their leaves in some degree fleshy, though not elsewhere fleshy. These slightly varying organisms are interesting in as far as they present characters analogous to those possessed by the species which are confined to similar conditions. When a variation is of the slightest use to any being, we cannot tell how much to attribute to the accumulative action of natural selection, and how much to the definite action of the conditions of life.

Thus, it is well known to furriers (persons dealing with furs) that animals of the same species have thicker and better fur the further north they live; but .who can tell how much of this difference may be due to the warmest-clad individuals having been favored and preserved during many generations, and how much to the action of the severe climate? For it would appear that climate has some direct action on the hair of our domestic quadrupeds (four footed). Instances could be given of similar varieties being produced from the same species under external conditions of life as different as can well be conceived; and on the other hand, of dissimilar varieties being produced under apparently the same external conditions”.

On the face of it, the diverse results in each current of events manifest subjective dominance. Finally denouncing chance in outright ridicule, Darwin opines “I have hitherto some times, spoken as if the variations so common and multiform with organic beings under domestication (taming) and in a lesser degree with those under nature-were due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation".

(6) Accidents no doubt present to us a considerably perplexing picture. Japan lives under the shadow of potent danger of earthquakes. Millions have been overturned and ruthlessly annihilated in the Nature's fiery "freaks'. Hiroshima, the city that suffered atom bomb disasters in the Second World War took a heavy toll of Japan's man power, for which Americans are cursed by the aggrieved.

But whom can we blame where there is a bolt from the blue? On 14-1-51, Reuter released a news item from Waco (Texas, U.S.A.) that the pilot who led A-bomb on Hiroshima, Claude Eatherly has been declared insane. The report reads, "The former United States Air Force Major who led the Atom Bomb missions against Japan in the Second World War, Claude Eatherly, has been declared insane by a country jury here. The jury yesterday committed the Texas war hero to an ex-servicemen's hospital here for treatment of schizophrenic reaction. Since 1950 he has been admitted to the hospital nine times. The tall ex-pilot flew reconnaissance (survey for military) missions over both Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately ahead of the planes carrying the Atom Bombs. He once told a psychiatrist he felt responsible for killing 100,000 people at Hiroshima. His brother, Mr. James Eatherly, applied to a County Court last September for his brother to be committed to a mental institution for the protection of himself as well as others. Among the decorations Eatherly won was the Distinguished Flying Cross. He was discharged from the Air Force in 1947 and since then has been in trouble with the law on several occasions. He served a nine month sentence for forging a check in New Orleans in 1953. He also robbed a grocery store in Dallas, and broke into Post offices in Texas".  As a spontaneous reaction, a considerable population belonging to Hiroshima is likely to gloat over the news.

No doubt the Japanese have suffered an enormous damage. But, if, the logic of Nature's penal code is once unreservedly glorified, it bursts forth a barrage of pointed, embarrassing questions.

6 A) Have all the pilots turned lunatics?

6 B) by the same logic, does not A-bomb on Hiroshima reveals unconsciously / displays expression of a punishment in accordance with Nature's rule? (And incidentally, were all the residents of Hiroshima blown up to be launched into eternity?)

6 C) on endorsement of Nature's rational equity, what difference does it make if Nature administers correction by means of insanity, so-called accident or T.B.?

6 D) this recalls my aphoristic (crisp) conversation with one of the convicts convicted to death during one of my visits to jail for research.

Without my touching the point the condemned on his own flared up, “I am not guilty of murder. Those who have really committed the offence will meet the due penalty one day or the other. I am unnecessarily and accidentally caught instead of them".

I paused a little and said, 'If you believe that the real culprits are incapable of evading equitable impalement (punishment) in future, when they would be actually dealt with retributive (penalizing) justice, they shall be as blank as you are about immediate cause of their catastrophe. Then, they would curse some escaped offender, following in your footsteps. While going to gallows, they will plead ignorant of their guilt as you do today. But, dear friend, you have rightly penetrated through Nature's fundamental creed. For some of your bygone (past) blunder, passed out of cognition, you are meeting your present lot. I do not want to offend you, but to confirm your own pious belief”.

The convict shook his head after a while and conceded, "So it is. Now I will die quietly and convinced".

7) Accidents are traced to the man’s internal situation time and again.

Doctor Dunbar records “A German named Marbe was first to note publicly the existence of the accident habit. In 1926 he proved statistically that the person who has had one accident is more likely to have another than the individual who never had any. In 1934 a Viennese, Alexandra Adler suggested that an unknown factor in human personality was responsible for curious repetition of injuries to those who are prone to accident.

Giving many more illustrations and research findings on “Accidents”, S. V. concludes with a quote from 'Fundamentals of Marx- ism, Leninism’.

"It follows from this connection of accident and necessity that accidental phenomena are also governed by certain laws, which may be studied and become known".

Conclusion:

Necessarily then, every effect-disease, accident, dis- pleasure is related to a deserving cause, though beyond cognition, at an individual Plane. There are no accidents or co-incidences in nature although we may not be able to trace the cause in every occurrence of such nature.

We may not know the purpose (i.e. cause , intent), but the being of the Universe cannot be considered as an accident.

Vijay R. Joshi