Have you ever experienced a moment when you feel that your existence if worthless? That even though you might be a good at your profession, and good in this and that roles of your life, yet fundamentally you are inferior as a person? Have you been disturbed by a feeling that even when all of your life goals are rational, in the bottom of it all everything is existentially void and without any meaning? If so, have you considered getting shiny leather boots?

The heck what? Shiny leather boots don't have anything to do with the existential void! To have or not to have boots doesn't make one better or worse as a person. There is no way ones inner worth of existence would depend on those boots. Right? Well, I don't know, but when I was a school-kid, I remember a teacher telling an old story about a man named Pauno who constantly complained that he feels himself as a worthless piece of cow manure, and if he only got a pair of shiny leather boots then he would be considered A Real Man, then his personal existence would be justified, his dignity restored. (And, thinking of it in this way, there seems to be hints of that kind of thought pattern in some aspects of our consumerism culture... Buy this, it will boost your self-esteem!).

Seen from a more general point of view, would say that there are two kinds of questions. Empirical ones, and existential ones. Empirical ones can be answered by empirical evidence. "Ilkka has shiny new leather boots" is an empirical statement, and can be verified by taking a look at Ilkka, observing him on different days walking around wearing those shiny new leather boots. Well, existential questions are bit more tricky, because they deal with non-tangible things like "the meaning of it all", "the worth of my personal existence", or "dignity". These are felt inside ones own personality, not observed in the external reality. But, quite often, these two layers get mixed. Existential questions are very tricky to grasp, to comprehend, and to express. It is easier to wrap them into tangible symbols. And now we can see that for Pauno the shiny leather boots had become a symbol of dignity and self-worth.

So, what do you think? Was it really so that Pauno's life was worthless because he didn't have those boots? Or would you suggest Pauno to reconsider the symbolical value of leather boots? In any case, I'd guess that for Pauno it won't be humanly possible to see the leather boots as mere items without any symbolical meaning - unless he first finds that same symbolical meaning elsewhere. But things like these, they can't be quickly and easily changed by a simple rational decision. Typically, if one sees a strong symbolical meaning in X, no amount of rational reasoning is going to convince the person that X is a 'mere thing without that symbolical value'. So, existential questions can only be answered on the level of symbols, spiritual experiences, or by slow but steady process of inner change - things like that, which take place in human life, but yet they can't be proven by a line of rational argumentation.

And, I think this pretty much frames the question of The Free Will. Once it becomes an existential question, it isn't very effective to try to provide a dust-dry theoretical solution. Rational arguments do only so little to convince the existential soul on the quest for Meaning. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, me thinks. But, since I've been asked about my personal opinion, I'll do my best to express my views, both on the empirical level and on the existential level. Let's start with the empirical level. If human body is entirely made of atoms, and all the movement of atoms is determined by laws of physics, then in the fundamental sense of the word we don't have a free will, but we are just a piece of machinery, right?

In an earlier post I used an example of rolling a dice. If I cast a dice, I can't say what side will end facing up. The result is random, and there is 1/6 probability for any given number to occur. This is the way it works, on the level of daily reality. Although, we might think that since the dice is made of atoms, and all the movement of atoms is determined by laws of physics, it would be theoretically speaking possible to calculate the result of the roll, if we knew all the necessary values, measured in exact detail. It is just that on the practical level this makes no difference, since it isn't possible to take all those necessary measurements, and even if it was, it would still take complex calculations for a super computer to reach a solution - which would still be likely to fail if there is a 0.0001% error in any of the measured variables. OK, can we agree on this? I hope so. But does a dice have a free will, then? That if we rolled a dice down the slope of Mount Everest, it would be so incredibly complex calculation to estimate the outcome - yet no-one assumes that somewhere in that complexity hides a free will of the plain ordinary dice. And I agree with that.

But a human brain, it is not made of isolated dices. It is a complex network of neurons, processing information on multiple levels at once. (And if you ask me, it is very likely that it is not the brain alone, but other organs participate in the vital information processing.) I know a computer is a bit risky metaphor - but still, we usually think that what happens inside the microprocessor is determined by laws of physics. And the processor is so constructed that it processes just a series of ON / OFF stuff, streams of 1 and 0, performing logical operations on those. Yet, with this relatively simple infrastructure it is possible to build a system which runs a complex algorithm. For example, a path-finding algorithm examines different options, and based on certain criteria makes decisions that which direction to take the next, when trying to find a path from the origin to the destination. So, the question is, if we'd keep on adding more and more complex layers of information processing, would the system at some point start to display behaviour typical of The Free Will?

From a programmer's point of view, I'd like to emphasize that the central feature of human information processing is self-regulation. We store memories. We form opinions. We judge and we reason. We examine different options based on our previous experience, based on our fears and wishes, hunches and guesses. In a fundamental sense this is different from the complexity of a single dice rolling down a mountain. As, what happens to that dice, affects only that dice itself. But what happens inside the neural network of human brain, it constantly affects other areas of that network. It is all about connections between neurons, and they create self-regulating circuits. And, if you ask me, they are complex enough that eventually those information processing circuits just form a sense of "I am here, and my personality is like this", and that "Now I have options A, B, and C to choose from, and no external entities are forcing me, so I am free to decide." And even "Woops! I don't know where this came from, but suddenly an option D popped into my mind. I don't know if anyone has ever before heard of this! Maybe I am an genius, and I invented something completely new!"

So, am I saying that "The Free Will" is just an illusion, a mere feeling created by a machine made of neurons? And this, I think, is where we start to drift from the empirical level to the existential level. That is indicated by words like "illusion" and "mere", which aren't strictly empirical, but carry an existential evaluation of "worth" or "meaning". Namely, that "mere" is something less, inferior, not worth that much. Like a pebble of sand, mere matter with no soul, no dignity.

Ah well, for me, this is the core of the problem. If I look at a pebble of sand, for me it is not "mere", in no way is it "inferior", or "worth less". For me, a pebble of sand is a miracluous mystery expression of the deep essence of The Universe. Just like everything is. Everything is awesome, great, and full of meaning. Yeah, I know thins like these are beyond rational argumentation. And in no way I am telling that my way of experiencing the world should be universally adopted. I'm just trying to express in words something about the way I feel and think, but of course everybody is free to feel and to think in their own ways =)

So, I think we humans are special in the sense that we are capable of complex and detailed cognitive reasoning. (Although, just reading the youtube commments of UnReal World trailer makes one feel that so many people use their Free Will to avoid using their rational and cognitive capabilities, and prefer to put into words what hormone-driven rams do physically when they fight in the autumn mating season... I've seen those animals fight to death just trying to find out that "who is the boss here, who is superior and who is inferior". We humans seem to be no special in that way. A lot of the time we seem to be doing the same, just using words (and sometimes considering using the nukes, just because that is so cool, so cool man!) But in my world, we humans are not special because of some assumed Free Will which would set us apart from the material machinery of nature. And I don't know which way it is. In a way, I think that if a human brain is capable of making free decisions, then most likely also a horse is, and also sheep, ravens, frogs, pikes and burbots. And probably also amoebas and leycocyte cells. If those organisms are complex enough to evaluate sensory data and to adjust their behaviour to approach favourable conditions and to avoid unfavourable situations, then I see no reason to assume, that some of that information processing might fulfill the conditions we typically think of "The Free Will" - ie. "being able to choose the other way, not being forced to just railroad down a predetermined path". Moreover, a leycocyte cell seems to act on purpose. Some of those cells are specialized in destroying other micro-organisms considered malicious. A leycocyte has a purpose to fulfill. It's actions contribute towards the overall health of the whole body. And, I think this is the kind of a deep existential sense of Meaning we humans often seem to look for. Having a deep unquestioned feeling that our personal existence and our actions carry on towards something bigger and transcendent. (I'm assuming that from the point of view of a single leycocyte the whole human body appears as some kind of transcendent entity, too big to comprehend, yet somehow affecting and taking care of everything.)

Now let me guess. My explanation is not satisfying. I'm just saying "somehow" and "complex" and "maybe" - am I trying to ignore the simple basic question? Do I pretend that a machine made of atoms is not a machine? So, let's go back to the empirical side of it. I think it is helpful to remember that the whole paradox of The Free Will is a moral one, and in the western tradition it is greatly affected by Christian theology. In its Christian from the question is: "OK, so after you die, you are taken to God, who then will evaluate your actions. If you have done bad things, you go to Hell, but if you have done good things, you get to Heaven. Then, at the same time, we also teach that The God is omnipotent, has created everything, and knows everything, and sees the future. Logically, doesn't this then mean, that God already knows what you are going to do and to choose? That you can't choose to do something which The God didn't already plan for you. And what kind of God is that, who first creates a bunch of bad people and a bunch of good people, and then pretends that the actions and decisions of the said persons warrants them eternal time in Hell or Heaven?" - and in the modern version The God is replaced by entities like The Big Bang and the Laws of Nature. But, if you ask me, we are back to the shiny boots.

The Christian mythology carries the symbolical meaning that 1) "There is Omnipotent Law which Knows Everything and Which Determines Everything". And 2) "That Law is God". Then, the vulgar interpretation of scientific world view preserves the 1), and replaces 2) by "That Law is The Laws of Physics, and the Initial State of The Universe". Which, to me, seems just another mythology which isn't very well rooted in empirical evidence. No, I'm not saying that science is all just fairy tales. I think that the empirical scientific method is very good. It is just that Western science is so very young - and that science is all about the method, not about a static collection of facts and beliefs. By definition, any scientific belief is subject to change, if future evidence shows that old theories have to be overhauled. I'm not a physician, but to me it seems rather plausible to assume that The Universe in itself is a lot more dynamical and alive than the old mechanical view claims.

But, then again, in my personal view, this isn't that much connected to the Free Will. Personally, I don't care that much if the workings of my internal organs are somehow physically predetermined (a lot like I don't judge my self-esteem based on boots I have or don't have). And, ultimately, I think that we can't know for sure if there is a free will or not. So, strictly speaking, I'm not taking sides in this dilemma. In the end, yes, in my eyes the whole question is just some kind of unnecessary by-product of trying to fit the Universe and Existence into descriptions of a mechanical mythology. For me, the answer is not a theoretical explanation of how material body and freedom of will are compatible - for me, the answer is a change of mythology which makes the whole question to vanish away. And yes, I know, at this point we have pretty much exhausted the capability of language to deliver mythological and existential viewpoints =)

So, enough for today. It is 1 am, and tomorrow is a full day of work. I choose to go get some sleep now. And I feel comfortable about not knowing for sure what kind of mysterious wonderful stuff is working there to enable my conscious experience of deciding to crawl to bed. I like things which are mysterious and wonderful, I'm happy to dwell with them. Good night, everybody!