How do we know what we know? To know something, we must first of
all establish what we accept as data, and what we consider requires definition
and proof, that is, we must determine what we know already, and what we wish to
know. And, we know from the very first step towards cognition that a man is
struck by two obvious facts: The existence of the world in which he lives and
the existence of consciousness in himself. Neither the one nor the other can he
prove or disprove, but both of them are facts for him. This is all we have the
right to accept as data. All the rest requires proof of its existence and
definition on the basis of these two data we already possess. The direct
outcome of these two fundamental data; the existence in us of a psychological
life, i.e. sensations, representations, concepts, thinking, feeling, desires
and so on, and the existence of the world outside us is a division of
everything we know into subjective and objective, a division perfectly clear to
our ordinary perception. Everything we take to be the properties of the world,
we call objective, and everything we take as properties of our inner life, we
call subjective. The 'subjective world' we perceive directly; it is within us.
The 'objective world' we represent to ourselves as existing outside of us is
most clearly denned by the fact that we perceive it as existing in time and in
space and cannot perceive it or represent it to ourselves apart from these
conditions. Usually, we say that the objective world consists of things and
phenomena, i.e. of things and of changes in the state of things. A phenomenon
exists for us in time, a thing exists in space. But such a division of the
world into subjective and objective does not satisfy us. By means of reasoning we
can establish that, actually, we only know our own sensations, representations
and concepts, and that we perceive the objective world by projecting outside of
ourselves the presumed causes of our sensations. Further, we find that our
cognition of both the subjective and the objective world may be true or false,
correct or incorrect. The criterion for determining the correctness or
incorrectness of our cognition of the subjective world is the form of
relationship of one sensation to others, and the force and character of the
sensation itself. In other words, the correctness of one sensation is verified
by comparing it with another of which we are more sure, or by the intensity and
the taste of a given sensation. The criterion for determining the correctness or
incorrectness of our cognition of the objective world is exactly the same. It
seems to us that we define things and phenomena of the objective world by means
of comparing them one with another; and we imagine that we discover the laws of
their existence apart from ourselves and our cognition of them. But this is an
illusion. We know nothing about things separately from ourselves and we have no
means of verifying the correctness or incorrectness of our cognition of the
objective world apart from sensations.
Since the remotest antiquity, the question of our relation to the
true causes of our sensations has been the main subject of philosophical
research. Men have always felt that they must find some solution of this
question, some answer to it. These answers alternated between two poles,
between a complete denial of the causes themselves, and the assertion that the
causes of sensations lie in ourselves i.e. we have free will and not in
anything external and the admission that we know these causes, that they are
contained in the phenomena of the external world, that these very phenomena
constitute the causes of sensations, and that the cause of observable phenomena
themselves lies in some subtle forms of external world i.e. fatalism.
In simple words, free will is the ability to select a course of
action as a means of fulfilling some desire which is under control of oneself.
David Hume, put it as a power of acting or of not acting, according to the
determination of one’s will while fatalism is the doctrine that all events are
preordained and predestined in such a way that human beings do not have
control over them. Nietzsche described it as an attitude of resignation in
the face of some future event or events which are thought to be inevitable.
A huge debate is going on with lots of argument: both in favor and
against. Natalie Barney sees fatalism as the lazy
man's way of accepting the inevitable. Bill O'Reilly denied the concept of free
will by saying “You don't have free will when you have lung cancer.” Alan
Moore’s opinion is “As far as I can see, it's not important that we have
free will, just as long as we have the illusion of free will to stop us going
mad.” There are many who do not share either of these
extreme views and hold a place midway between free will and fatalism. Kant established that our sensations must have causes in
the external world, but that we are unable, and shall never be able, to
perceive these causes by sensory means, i.e. by the means which serve us to
perceive phenomena. Jawaharlal Nehru put it as “Life is like a game of cards.
The hand you are dealt is determinism; the way you play it is free will.”
Life only thinks about itself. Life is only concerned about
itself. Life everywhere faces two problems: survival and propagation. Life is
being busy to resolve these fundamental issues or else goes extinct. In the
words of Charles Darwin, “It is survival to the fittest.” Life in humans has
some addition features due to having a larger brain in humans as compared to
animals. The misery in humans hampers the quality and performance in
terms of survival and propagation.
Thus, by determining
everything we know is about survival and propagation through our senses in
terms of space and time which is indeed confirmed by Special Theory of
relativity that space and time are not properties of the world, but merely
properties of our perception of the world by means of sense organs. In the
words of Einstein, “Time and space are modes by which we think and not
conditions in which we live.” Consequently, it is we who invest it with these
properties when we sense and perceive it. Quantum Physics, further,
acknowledges the role of an observer in the observed physical world. The
observed physical world is described rather by a mathematical structure
that can best be characterized as representing information and
propensities: some information about all the possible choices is
simultaneously present in the quantum state, and the possibility that any
one of the mutually exclusive alternatives might be pertinent. Whichever
choice the experimenter eventually makes, the associated set of
predictions is assumed to hold.
According to Kant, everything we find in external world is put
into it by ourselves. We do not know what the world is like independently of
ourselves. Moreover, our conception of things has nothing in common with the
things as they are in themselves, apart from them. And, most important of all,
our ignorance of things in them is due not to our insufficient knowledge, but
to the fact that we are totally unable to have a correct knowledge of the world
by means of sense-perception which is in congruence with the Principle of
Uncertainty. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that one cannot
simultaneously know the position and momentum of an object with arbitrarily
high precision. The more precisely the position is determined, the less
precisely the momentum is known in this instant, and vice versa.
Sir Roger Penrose, studying the physical basis of consciousness
applying quantum physics and Einstein's general theory of relativity on Plank's
scale, figured out that consciousness involves a factor which is neither
deterministic nor probabilistic but non-computable. Conscious choices and
understanding may be non-computable and life may be seen as a combination of
deterministic pre-conscious processes acted on by a non-computable influence.
It could be deduced that one can never know whether free will or
fatalism. It is also clear that the main question is not about the free will or
fatalism but to avoid the misery or sorrow in life. All schools of philosophy
and religions are directed to solve this problem. The theory of free will,
fatalism or concoction of both was devised to tackle this problem. It is now a well establish fact that
relaxation in concepts of absolute free will and fatalism appeals most of the
people and could better cope with misery in majority. When Yagyavalkya, ancient
Upanisada sage of India, was asked about free will or fatalism, he said “The
concept of free will and fatalism are like two wheels of a cart; if anyone is
missing, the cart only moves in circle- round and round. To ensure proper
movement on path, one needs to use both the wheels.”
The same confusion was put before Muhammad and he asked the person
to lift one of his legs. The person lifted his left leg. Again, the Prophet
asked the person to lift another leg but he is bound and could not lift his
leg. Initially, the person was free to lift his leg; in fact, he had options to
choose whether he wanted to lift his left leg or right leg. As soon as he
chose, he became bound. The concoction of free will and fatalism could also be
understood by considering a sailboat analogy. A sailor sets the sail in a
certain way; the direction the boat sails is determined by the action of the
wind on the sail. One cannot change the direction of the wind but can adjust
the sail to be in right direction.
One could think beyond space and time but could only express
within the limits of space and time. Conscious choices may be non-computable
but expressed algorithmically through deterministic or probabilistic
statements. It could better be understood through biology of brain. The newest
area of human brain is neocorex. The neocortex is responsible for rational and
analytical thought and language. The limbic brain is responsible for all of
feelings, such as trust and loyalty. It is also responsible for all human
behavior and all decision-making, but it has no capacity for language. The
communication takes place directly with the part of the brain that controls
decision making, and the language part of the brain allows rationalizing those
decisions. The part of the brain that controls the feelings has no capacity for
language. It is this disconnection that makes putting feelings into words so
hard. Again, the part of the brain that controls decision-making doesn't
control language, so we rationalize. Rationally, one knows that one’s
explanation isn't the real reason. So, enlightened people could not express the
higher level of consciousness in words and keep silence over the subject and
when speaks one’s version is found to be different from another enlightened
one’s rationally as in the case of Muhammad’s explanation and sailboat analogy.
There are also the cases where absolute free will was experienced;
that is why, statements such as “Thou art That” and “I and My Father are One”
were stated independently in different cultures and religion. It is not possible to obtain absolute free
will without entering in the realm of occultism and very few would have such
psychology-type to combat misery in one’s life.
Basically, human beings can be broadly classified into four types
according to their psycho-somatic conditions: the active type, the mystic type,
the philosophic type and devotional type. This classification is based on the
predominance of one or the other three aspects of the human mind: the will, the
intellect and emotions. In the light of latest biological researches, the
active type, devotional type, the philosophic type and the mystic type can be
attributed to neurological pathway dominated by four major neurotransmitters:
testosterone, estrogen, serotonin and dopamine respectively.
Any single theory or concept could not meet the different
requirements of all pyscho-somatic types. So, it is obvious to formulate
various theories and concepts to alleviate sorrow and misery in one's
life keeping in mind the
necessities of different psycho-somatic
types.
You have your way. I have my way. As for
the right way, the correct way and the only way, it doesn't exist.
~Friedrich Nietzche
