Determinism Revisited

[Brandon]

The free will/determinism issue's been on my mind a lot lately. On the one hand, I want to believe in free will, but on the other, I feel like only a fool could deny the claims of the scientists, since they've got cold, hard data on their side.

I haven't heard any decent arguments for compatabilism that don't sound like desperate rationalizations. Are there any good refutations of determinism, or is it a losing battle?

[Perndog]

I thought there was some offshoot of the uncertainty principle that knocked a hole or two in determinism...could be wrong, I'm not too up on theoretical fizzicks.

[Sethomas]

Well, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle refutes Pierre Simone de Laplace's belief that there could be an intelligence that could predict the future by knowing the present positions and momenta of all particles. As Heisenberg stated, this isn't because the future is notpredetermined (from a quantum standpoint, it is) but because it is impossible to have absolute knowledge of a particle's properties.

Spinster recommended to me a book called The Illusion of Conscious Will by Daniel Wegner, and I enjoyed it muchly. In his final chapter, Wegner stated that the notion of free will is so irrational once you dissect it into its component axioms that virtually no modern theory of psychology dares to incorporate it. In short, he stated that if free will did exist, at most it would be an internal coinflip.

[Dole]

I don't know why you are bothering to discuss it, Keiko died and they won't be able to make any more.

[The One and Only...]

There are several refutations of determinism, but many you will not accept.

You see, I can't figure you out, Brandon. You are irreligious, but somehow want to believe in fanciful concepts like free will. You're also left-wing, which breeds determinists (that's why the communists thought that they could create a new socialist man who strives for the good of all).

Anyway...

The most basic refutation is this: God endows us with free will, because without free will there would not exist any moral good.

I doubt you will find that one... sufficient. So here is another one, strait from the textbook:

"In the second place, some think that determinism is downright incompatible with genuine thinking, using the word to cover a broad range of intellectual activities. Setting adide such intellectual experiences as intuition, flashes of insight, and creative imagination, which some think transcend the flux and flow of blind and mechanical causation, is not the determinist caught in a hopeless if not self-contradictory position?"

Now, you may wonder at that staement, but consider this conversation and you may see what he is talking about.

"Determinist: All things are causally determined.
Indeterminist: But is that statement itself therefore causally determinded?
Determinist: Why, of course. I just said that everything is!
Indeterminist: Well, then, why should I take it seriously?
Determinist: Because I am a rational person, and I offer it as a rational position.
Indeterminist: But that's just the point. I don't call people or positions "rational" that are blind products of antecedent causes. I might as well argue with a turnip!"

Perhaps the simplest way to get rid of determism is to get rid of materialism. Materialism and determinism usually go hand in hand in philosophical realms. And truly, materialism and determinism is not that difficult to replace with idealism and free will.

[theapportioner]

Even without determinism, the existence of free will isn't proven. Indeterminism does not equal free will - far from it. I think the jury's still out as to whether the universe is determined, but this this largely irrelevant to the discussion of free will. Forget about subatomic particles and superstrings for a moment. The more relevant question is this: is there something about our brains that would provide us with free will? Quantum fluctuations, if they exist in the brain, won't do - all that would show is there is an element of unpredictability in the brain.

OAO: That dialogue is an idiotic one and only refutes a subjective, phenomenological determinism.

[The_Rorschach]

My peronal opinion, which is neither eduated nor articulate, is that Free Will and 'Fate' are dichotomous. One cannot generalize the specific, nor can they objectify the subjective, so essentially, within the CONTEXT of an individuals life, there is a high amount of probability in how they will respond to any situation, but there is always a measure of uncertainty. . .So yes, I believe Free Will exists, but that is not to say that individuals act freely.

If that makes sense.

I wish I were CLA sometimes. He has a better background in philosophy than I do, and doubtless he knows of someone who has already taken the same stance as I have, but can phrase it better than I. :(

[The One and Only...]

That is called compatibalism, Ror.

[theapportioner]

If all compatibilism amounts to is an illusion of free will, then I doubt too many people would be thrilled by that news.

[Brandon]

At any rate, I think the concept of complete, unconstrained free will (philosophical libertarianism) can be ruled out with some certainty. The idea that decisions are made without influence or prompting by biological and environmental forces could strike anyone with a shred of common sense as absurd.

Consciousness is always consciousness of something. Thoughts are never spontaneous, but always brought about by either a sense experience or a recollection of earlier data. If thoughts were to occur spontaneously, consciousness would be a type of causa sui, an uncaused cause, and unless you believe in some type of soul, that would be just ludicrous.

But anyway, on to responsibility--if man's actions or thoughts are caused/determined, can he still be held responsible for them?

[theapportioner]

As long as humans are aware of actions of which they are the authors, then yes, IMO.

[Brandon]

As long as humans are aware of actions of which they are the authors, then yes, IMO.
But if causality is the author of all actions, then how can humans be held responsible?

[mburbank]

I either have true free will or am structured to experience the perfect illusion of free will. I am not structured to be able to tell the difference between ture free ill and the perfect illusion of free will. Therefore I will behave as if I have true free will.

And yeah, Quantum Mechanics as we currently understand it argues strongly against determinism. Not that it affects the above statement anyway.

Worrying about the fundamentally unknowable is often a byproduct of anxiety, a sort of white noise wall flung up to prevent potentially frightening activity.

[theapportioner]

Problem is, we don't have a perfect illusion of free will.

Brandon, I'll get to yer post a little later.

[mburbank]

Did you have any choice about saying that?

[theapportioner]

The guy with the hand in my back made me do it.

[The One and Only...]

Actually, Quantum Mechanics only goes against determinism in the popular interpretation. Need I remind you of Einstein's Hidden Variable theory?

At any rate, it does not support free will.

Personally, I think a new doctrine needs to be made that is entirely different from the two. Something like Inspirationalism, where the mind is able to freely choose but experience can open up new venues of thought previously unknown to the the thinker.

[theapportioner]

But if causality is the author of all actions, then how can humans be held responsible?

Responsible in what sense? I think it's okay to have a pragmatic ethics that is not grounded in the deepest metaphysical truths. There isn't any ground anyway. Nor do you have to depend exclusively on a notion of personal responsibility for a system of ethics or morality. For instance, the utilitarian argument for justifying a certain law. The illusion or fabrication of free will has obvious advantages for an individual member of our species. It allows one to recognize that she is the author of her actions, which obviously plays a crucial role in our learning from experience. To put it in another way, it would be impossible for a person to adopt a "psychology" (for the lack of a better word at the moment) of determinism because our FEELING of a conscious, free will is so strong and innate. Wegner, as I recall, likened it to an emotion. Though I'm not sure I agree completely, I think the message is fairly clear -- free will is a feeling that is not going away.

That being said, there are advantages, IMO, of seeing free will as something fabricated rather than something "real"...

[Brandon]

Good points, apportioner.

Am I wrong to assume that there is a certain naivete involved in the principles of causality? It seems to me that it can only be applied to immediate, short-term examples. And furthermore, since events don't exist in a vaccuum, how can we be sure what causes what?

For example, I was at a basketball game tonight. I got up to take a piss, and while I was gone, a player crashed down into my vacant seat. When I got back, my dad told me "good thing you got up and left." The assumption was that my getting up had nothing to do with the player falling, and he would have landed there in either situation, but how do we know that? This is really just Chaos Theory, but how do we know for sure that my getting up didn't cause a ripple effect to occur?

[mburbank]

The hidden variable is hidden because he couldn't figure it out, dope.

Events at the quantum level cannot be observed without effecting them. There are multipe different interpretations of how observation effects the subatomic world, from bizarre notions about particles having free will themsleves, to our own will determining their behavior to observation simply nudging particles, but no one I'm aware of thinks you can determine the location and momentum of an electron simlutaneously.

Einstein had a gut intuition that you could but he never got anywhere near it. To date, the only even tangientially related work has been done by Hawking who showed that black holes do emit some radiation proving some as yet undescribed linkage between quantum and classical physics.

[Brandon]

Another question: how can determinism account for the widespread success of rational-emotive therapy?

[theapportioner]

Well, as far as that goes, I see it like this: Input from the environment (you are a goood person, really you are) sets a little nugget or meme in your brain, and it just goes from there. Any number of inputs from the environment can change our emotions - the weather, a hot girl, etc. and this is another stimulus.

[The One and Only...]

The hidden variable is hidden because he couldn't figure it out, dope.

Well no shit, sherlock. The point is that it remains a viable theory for showing how determinism could work with quantum mechanics.

Events at the quantum level cannot be observed without effecting them. There are multipe different interpretations of how observation effects the subatomic world, from bizarre notions about particles having free will themsleves, to our own will determining their behavior to observation simply nudging particles, but no one I'm aware of thinks you can determine the location and momentum of an electron simlutaneously.

Show me the evidence. How can quantum events that are observed be compared to quantum events that are not observed for such a conclusion to be drawn? Highly illogical.

Most of these theories are the result of blown smoke. I believe it was a Nobel laurete who said that you can say whatever you want in physics these days.

Einstein had a gut intuition that you could but he never got anywhere near it. To date, the only even tangientially related work has been done by Hawking who showed that black holes do emit some radiation proving some as yet undescribed linkage between quantum and classical physics.

I wouldn't call it "gut intuition". It was more like an inductive argument built up from all previous observations in physics.

[Brandon]

Responsible in what sense? I think it's okay to have a pragmatic ethics that is not grounded in the deepest metaphysical truths. There isn't any ground anyway. Nor do you have to depend exclusively on a notion of personal responsibility for a system of ethics or morality. For instance, the utilitarian argument for justifying a certain law. The illusion or fabrication of free will has obvious advantages for an individual member of our species. It allows one to recognize that she is the author of her actions, which obviously plays a crucial role in our learning from experience. To put it in another way, it would be impossible for a person to adopt a "psychology" (for the lack of a better word at the moment) of determinism because our FEELING of a conscious, free will is so strong and innate. Wegner, as I recall, likened it to an emotion. Though I'm not sure I agree completely, I think the message is fairly clear -- free will is a feeling that is not going away.

That being said, there are advantages, IMO, of seeing free will as something fabricated rather than something "real"...
When I say "responsible," I mean in the sense that a "negative" behavior/crime can be punished to serve some abstract ideal of "justice."

If determinism holds true (and it seems to me like we have to assume it does), then punishment for punishment's sake (in other words, not used as a part of reconditioning) is a grievous mistake based on a fallacious idea.

[The One and Only...]

Not necessarily. Determinists themselves are split upon this issue. Hard Determinism vs. Soft Determinism.

Also remember that we could simply kill those who are genetically or socially inferior to increase efficiency.

[Brandon]

Another thought:

Defenders of free will often cite man's "inherent feeling of freedom" as if it is, and always has been, a fundamental part of being human. But why do we assume that this "feeling of freedom" is itself not a conditioned response? After all, from a very early age, we are constantly told by parents, religious officials, and authority figures that we are free and totally responsible.

And if it were such a "natural" feeling, why is that many, if not all of the earliest peoples were fatalistic in their worldview?

[mburbank]

" The point is that it remains a viable theory for showing how determinism could work with quantum mechanics."

A mathematical formula which contains an unknown which would solve the equation is not a viable theory, is is a problem.

The hidden variable is "A number so that we could distinguish when an electron is a wave and when it is a particle".

Burbank's theory of faster than light travel, ie. FTL = CX, or Faster Than Light travel equals the Speed of Light times an unknown number which when multiplied by the speed of light results in a number greater than the speed of light is not a theory, it is a problem. Theories can at some future point or at VERY least in thought expiriments be tested. You can test E=MC2.


"How can quantum events that are observed be compared to quantum events that are not observed for such a conclusion to be drawn?"

To date you cannot observe any quantum events, only their after effects. No one has ever seen an atom, let alone an electron or a quark. You theorize their existance based on their observable effects, like Brownian motion.

"Show me the evidence"
I'm arguing for unpredictability, not predictability. There is no burden of proof at all. You CAN'T prove a negative. Determinism depends utterly on a predicatble, mechanical universe.

It's easy to see why determinism appeals to you, as you are the philisophical equivalent of a clockwork dog.

[The One and Only...]

A mathematical formula which contains an unknown which would solve the equation is not a viable theory, is is a problem.

The hidden variable is "A number so that we could distinguish when an electron is a wave and when it is a particle".

It is a viable theory for purposes of explanation.

Burbank's theory of faster than light travel, ie. FTL = CX, or Faster Than Light travel equals the Speed of Light times an unknown number which when multiplied by the speed of light results in a number greater than the speed of light is not a theory, it is a problem. Theories can at some future point or at VERY least in thought expiriments be tested. You can test E=MC2.

You don't understand why nothing can be faster than light. It would require an infinite mass.

To date you cannot observe any quantum events, only their after effects. No one has ever seen an atom, let alone an electron or a quark. You theorize their existance based on their observable effects, like Brownian motion.

That is irrelevant to your argument. It provides no support for the statement that mere observation alters the effects.

I'm arguing for unpredictability, not predictability. There is no burden of proof at all. You CAN'T prove a negative. Determinism depends utterly on a predicatble, mechanical universe.

Quantum results are still predictable, they simply are not deterministic; rather, they are probabilistic. That is no more "unpredictable" than, say, genetical results between two parents.

You CAN prove a negative. Consider mathematics. 2+2=5 can be disproven by the very axioms which mathematics is built upon. One could object to the axioms - but once this is done, you will realize that nothing can be proven.

It is theoretically impossible for science to create knowledge of any kind because it rests upon principles of induction.

It's easy to see why determinism appeals to you, as you are the philisophical equivalent of a clockwork dog.

No, it's not. AB pointed out that it makes it hard for me to justify libertarianism.

[kellychaos]

Sure, there may be some elaborate form of determinism at work but you know what? There are too many factors inolved that extend infinitely in time in space, forward and backward, that it is way beyond the capacity for my intellect to grasp it all. In other words, it feels like free will and that's good enough for me. :)

[mburbank]

You know what, OAO? You don't get what I'm saying, you don't even accept the possability that somebody might know more about something than you do and you start your arguments with the ironclad assumption you are already right. There is no uncertainty that argument with you is pointless.

Two things for you to go back and concider.

I already know that faster than light speed is impossible and I already know why. If that was my point, what was I saying to you? To be more direct, anyone can win any argument if hidden variable X= that thing which will make me win the argument.


Disproving 2+2=5 is not proving a negative, it is disproving a statement. Don't you have teachers? Or have the found your prancing so deterimental to the other students they have asked you to remain silent?

[theapportioner]

Another thought:

Defenders of free will often cite man's "inherent feeling of freedom" as if it is, and always has been, a fundamental part of being human. But why do we assume that this "feeling of freedom" is itself not a conditioned response? After all, from a very early age, we are constantly told by parents, religious officials, and authority figures that we are free and totally responsible.

And if it were such a "natural" feeling, why is that many, if not all of the earliest peoples were fatalistic in their worldview?

Interesting question. I think one has to distinguish feelings from worldviews (which are certainly not feelings). I'm not sure how to "feel" determined, especially as you said, determining causation is very problematic. If the sensation of a "free" conscious will is an emotion of some sort, then it's innate. (Like you can modulate happiness but you don't "teach" someone that happiness).

[Brandon]

Interesting question. I think one has to distinguish feelings from worldviews (which are certainly not feelings). I'm not sure how to "feel" determined, especially as you said, determining causation is very problematic. If the sensation of a "free" conscious will is an emotion of some sort, then it's innate. (Like you can modulate happiness but you don't "teach" someone that happiness).
True.

But I have to wonder--is that "feeling of freedom" really a gut feeling or just a common assumption we hold? Do we really feel as free as we say we do?

[Perndog]

I'm with Max on this one. Either we have free will or we're programmed to believe we do.

In the first case, my own philosophy already strongly advocates personal responsibility.

If, however, personal responsibility is false because everything is determined, then I don't really have a choice of what I want to believe. So if I were to decide that determinism really is true, I could stick to the same philosophy confident that it's not my decision - it's just a product of physical causes.

[kellychaos]

Isn't worrying about whether life is hinged on "free will" an argument made in vain, anyway? If all the infinite amount of causes in the universe determine your fate, to include the conditioning that gives you that feeling of "free will", then what difference is there to Joe Sixpack in the falsity of this belief? People base their whole lives on false beliefs of many kinds. One example is that of the various religions. Only one of them can be correct ... maybe not even one ... yet people live productive lives based a variety of false religions. The fact that the idea of free will stems from various religions is an interesting dichotomy in itself. The opposing (to me) ideas seem to keep each other in check. What would life of earth be like with no religions ("imagine there's no heaven") and, yet, everyone believed in free will ... keeping in mind the limits of our mortality. Would the general population just go insane with the knowledge that they have free reign to do anything yet they only have a limited amount of time to do this "anything". Actually, I don't think so. For some reason, people always invent some kind of morality to reel themselves in no matter if religion is involved. Nietzche may not agree with me but I don't think that it's religion that reigns us in so much as ourselves and the seemingly innate intellectual structure of "The Golden Rule".

[Brandon]

Isn't worrying about whether life is hinged on "free will" an argument made in vain, anyway? If all the infinite amount of causes in the universe determine your fate, to include the conditioning that gives you that feeling of "free will", then what difference is there to Joe Sixpack in the falsity of this belief? People base their whole lives on false beliefs of many kinds. One example is that of the various religions. Only one of them can be correct ... maybe not even one ... yet people live productive lives based a variety of false religions. The fact that the idea of free will stems from various religions is an interesting dichotomy in itself. The opposing (to me) ideas seem to keep each other in check. What would life of earth be like with no religions ("imagine there's no heaven") and, yet, everyone believed in free will ... keeping in mind the limits of our mortality. Would the general population just go insane with the knowledge that they have free reign to do anything yet they only have a limited amount of time to do this "anything". Actually, I don't think so. For some reason, people always invent some kind of morality to reel themselves in no matter if religion is involved. Nietzche may not agree with me but I don't think that it's religion that reigns us in so much as ourselves and the seemingly innate intellectual structure of "The Golden Rule".
Arguing in vain? I couldn't disagree more. I feel that it's just the opposite--one of the most important issues in philosophy.

It's important because our entire justice system is set up on the premise of free will--the idea that people can freely choose and, as such, are responsible for each and every one of their actions (unless of course, utter insanity can be proven). If free will is an illusion, "justice" and "responsibility" are also illusions. Punishment for punishment's sake, then, should be done away with, and "moral lapses" would require treatment and reconditioning instead. The common man can go on believing in free will for as long as he wants, but people who know better shouldn't let that illusion influence the way we set up society.

Also, you may have misinterpreted Nietzsche. He believed that while morals were subjective, human creations, they were still vitally important to the structure of a society. He criticized certain religions (particularly Christianity), however, for indoctrinating western society with morals that were life-denying, meaning they went against the grain of what is in the best interest of humanity. He felt we needed to create a new morality, a re-valuation of values that would glorify pride, strength, instinct, and sexuality.

He wasn't even against religion per se, so long as said religion was a reflection of life-affirming values. Pagan polytheism, for example.

[The One and Only...]

I already know that faster than light speed is impossible and I already know why. If that was my point, what was I saying to you? To be more direct, anyone can win any argument if hidden variable X= that thing which will make me win the argument.

Then you are guilty of commiting a false analogy. Variable X is a possibility, while the variable for past-light speed is impossible.


Disproving 2+2=5 is not proving a negative, it is disproving a statement. Don't you have teachers? Or have the found your prancing so deterimental to the other students they have asked you to remain silent?

Negative - Logic. Designating a proposition that denies agreement between a subject and its predicate.

Therefore, the statement "2+2 is not equal to 4" is, by definition, a disproven negative.

[Brandon]

Something else I've noticed:

We all agree with determinism when it comes to our dealings with other people. We manipulate, influence, and condition one another on an almost daily basis.

Take, for example, asking for a favor. We approach the person at an appropriate time, we make sure our question is in the proper tone of voice, and we phrase it in just such a way as to increase the odds of a positive answer.

But we always think it's different when it comes to oursleves, don't we? "Nothing controls me. I have free will."

[The One and Only...]

You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.

[Brandon]

You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.
Personality is a form of determinism.

[The One and Only...]

Why? Free will is not synonymous with unpredictability.

[Brandon]

Why? Free will is not synonymous with unpredictability.
What the hell are you trying to say?

Personality is a component of determinism because it influences behavior and decisions.

[The One and Only...]

Personality is merely the observable result of our behavior and decisions. It comes from them, rather than influences them.

[Brandon]

Personality is merely the observable result of our behavior and decisions. It comes from them, rather than influences them.
Even you know that's a bullshit statement. Not only does it contradict what psychological research has told us, but it stands in contrast to your earlier claim that you are an "introvert by nature."

[The One and Only...]

You read to much into such statements.

Psychology can't contradict that. All it can do is observe responses and call consistancies personality traits. It can't prove that personality even exists in the way you define it.

[theapportioner]

It is shocking to me that you are endorsing behaviorism.

[Brandon]

It is shocking to me that you are endorsing behaviorism.
He'll endorse whatever contradicts the person who first contradicted him, even if it doesn't coincide with his ideology. I think he'd rather die than have one of his statements be thought of as wrong.

Oh, and BTW:

We all agree with determinism when it comes to our dealings with other people. We manipulate, influence, and condition one another on an almost daily basis.
You are confusing accepting determinism with accepting personality.
You're really going to have to clarify, because I don't see how that relates to my post in any way.

[sspadowsky]

THis thread still boring?

*cursory glance*

Yep. Sure enough.

[Dole]

And no one acknowledged my shit and obscure-ish joke. Bastards.

[executioneer]

wtf i didn't know that keiko died, what happened :( last i heard he (she?) was in a cage at iceland getting acclimated to semi-wild conditions :(

-willie

[The One and Only...]

I don't endorse behaviorism.

You said that we manipulate determinism, but to be more exact, we manipulate people's personalities. I don't see what's so hard to follow.

[Brandon]

I don't endorse behaviorism.

You said that we manipulate determinism, but to be more exact, we manipulate people's personalities. I don't see what's so hard to follow.
"Manipulate determinism"? When did I say that? I'm not even sure what the hell that would mean.

What I did say was that by manipulating people through their personalities we acknowledge that some measure of determinism exists.

[The One and Only...]

What I'm saying is that there does not need to be a connection between personality and determinism. Personality is something which cannot be avoided - if someone were totally unpredictable, that would still be a personality trait.

I'd hate to get all analytic on your ass, but I think we might be operating under different impressions of just what personality is.

[kellychaos]

It's important because our entire justice system is set up on the premise of free will--the idea that people can freely choose and, as such, are responsible for each and every one of their actions (unless of course, utter insanity can be proven). If free will is an illusion, "justice" and "responsibility" are also illusions.

While I can see your point, some would argue that religion, specifically the Ten Commandments, are a major part of the basis for our legal system. Yet, I've seen religious documentaries where priests and rabbi alike have said that "the apple" is actually a metaphor for self-consciousness/identity. With self-consciousness taken into account, can the idea of "free will" be far behind? And so it seems we have two opposing forces at work in our justice system.


I see our legal system also, in part, as a means to keeps an orderly society. In that respect, it may further be seen as a means to keep in power those that are already in power. The powerful, in most cases, are the rich, n'est-ce pas? I know I'm going out on a limb but follow my argument just for fun. And so, it seems that the legal system is a means for the rich to stay rich by more or less hired protection ... i.e. the local police. Have you ever noticed how the police respond to the nice area of town faster than the bad part of town? That being said, what are we left with but a legal system that basically supports the current status quo with all the inherent paradigms. Is that "free will" in it's purest form?

[Brandon]

What I'm saying is that there does not need to be a connection between personality and determinism. Personality is something which cannot be avoided - if someone were totally unpredictable, that would still be a personality trait.

I'd hate to get all analytic on your ass, but I think we might be operating under different impressions of just what personality is.
Ok, we could debate personality theory forever, so I'll rephrase my original statement so that we don't get off-topic.

We all seem to acknowledge a type of determinism in that we know it's possible to exercise some measure of control over other people. We've all seen the results: techniques like behaviorism and subliminal advertising work, and they work very well. If we agree that people can be manipulated, just where the hell does the free will come into play?

The irony, I said, is that we suddenly reverse it when we think of ourselves. "Nothing controls my decisions! I have free will!"

[kellychaos]

Couldn't one say that what we have is basically a quasi-"free will"? What I mean to say is that although we have the social paradigms, the legal system, advertising ect that work on our conscious enough to subvert our will, there also seems to be a spark inside of us that acknowledges these influences yet still overcomes them with the imperative feeling that "Though I may have my limitations, I still have SOME choices which are my own." If this feeling was not inside of us, what would we be but a bunch of automotons, putting food in one end and waiting for it to come out the other while our body slowly evolves into worm food. In other words I find that the idea of "free will" is inexorably linked to our will to survive. Some instinct tells to strive for survival while our mind asks "For what?". the "for what?" is possibly creating life ... maybe reaching out socially to other people or maybe just in expressing yourself in some ways to others. That; however, is more like a moment to moment means of expression. I kind of like the Greek ideology of expression in the arts or even warfare gives you immortal life in the hearts of people long after you've perished.