Life, the Universe and Everything.

Means, Motive and Opportunity.

When "Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy" first appeared on TV I became an instant fan, although I have to admit I still haven't got around to reading the printed version as yet. The basic premise was that the whole point of human existence was an experiment in evolutionary intelligence (created by white mice) to find the question that has to be asked in order to explain 'Life, The Universe and Everything'. After millions of years; a women is eating her breakfast in a cafe when suddenly, in a flash of inspiration, it comes to her. Just at that moment the whole of Earth was destroyed by a Vogon space-ship.

Arthur Dent, being the only human to survive this unfortunate event, is then the only hope for the mice as it is suggested that; as he was alive at the time the woman in the cafe had the epiphany, then the answer they're looking for might also be locked away in his subconcious, similar to the notion of Morphic Resonance.

The reason I mention all this is because when I was 5 years old (I remember because I was walking home from Easter Compton Primary School at the time) I was distracted with the thought "How come I'm me and not somebody else" and I became convinced that I have a particular reason for being me, on this Earth at this time. It occured to me that there must be something I have to do or say or be, perhaps, when I'm older.

Then in 2001 I started studying Psychology at Fareham College, and in particular I was enthralled by studies in obediance and conformity that were carried out in the sixties, by Hofling, Zimbardo, Sheridan & King, Soloman Asch, but especially the "Germans are Different" study by Stanley Milgram.

Whatever criticisms of Milgram's work were made, upheld or refuted, at first I couldn't figure out why, if someone felt that continuing was wrong, did they continue anyway? It's not as though they had a gun to their head. Eventually it came to me that the reason those who continued did so because they didn't realise that they had the option of saying "No!" Think about it; if the original poster that was used to advertise for participants had said; "You may stop the experiment at any time" (as it would have-to if the experiment was repeated today) how many would have carried on then? This got me then wondering whether all actions, in all humans, come about largely as a result of a lack of alternatives.

I am aware that many would see this comment as absurd, basically challenging the notion of free-will. However, what do we have the free-will to do? I can't go for a drive in my Lamborghini - I don't own one. I can't buy a Lamborghini - I don't have that kind of money. I could steal one or steal the money for one, but I won't: why is that? Some people would: why is that?

I, yesterday, celebrated (actually 'endured' might be closer to the truth) 18,268 days since birth (includes 13 x 'February 29ths'). During those 18,268 days there have been many events that have shaped my life and resulted in who I am, what I believe, how I feel, where I should go and why I should care. Some of those events might be highly memorable, such as when I was told to look after my Mother when I was seven. Once my Mother had managed to get me 'safely' ensconced with a neighbour, she then proceeded in an attempt to kill herself. It's probably a simple matter, therefore, to explain some of my behaviour, my general apathy and lack of self-confidence - not really believing that there's a point to anything, but always hoping. If I didn't have hope then this blog wouldn't be written.

However, I believe each big event is preceeded by smaller micro-events realised through micro-decisions.

Imagine you suddenly decide you want a cup of tea. It's not simply that you are thirsty. If the only requirment for having a drink was thirst then tea would never have come-about. The only drink that humans (and all living things) require is water, so why do we have such a plethora of drinks available?

Part of the reason is the evolution of mammals. One defining point about mammals is that they suckle their young, so therefore it's clear that the baby starts life with an experience of a drink that is not water. So, "variety is the spice of life", as my Mother used to say, although in truth it's more than that. Without having aspirations or the desire to vary our experiences in life, whether in the food we eat, what we drink and other aspects, we would not be complete as human beings.

So, what about tea? Maybe there are some people reading this who have never come across tea and have no familiarity with the product, unlikely perhaps, but let's say that's the case. How would such a person have decided they'd like a cup of tea, prior to this moment when they first discover such a beverage is available? With no knowledge of it, it would be 'effectively' impossible. - I say 'effectively' because, at the end of the day, that person could have drunk it unknowingly, or maybe had simply forgotten about the existence of tea for some reason. However, let's get away from tea, I only use it as an example.

The point is that things can only become a reality if something else of relevance preceeds them. It always ammuses me when people ask the question; "What came first, the Chicken or the Egg?". - Hopefully people reading this are generally aware that eggs have been around alot longer than chickens. However, at one time respected people in the science community (prior to Darwin) proposed that creatures in their various forms initially came about spontaineously. That creatures, chickens for example, were created from inanimate source materials. This was generally the viewpoint of what was the "Professor Brian Cox"s of the day; 'Alchemists'.

'Alchemists', 'Witchdoctors', even 'Magicians' once held the most authoritative voice amongst the most advanced of civilisations. This was the case simply because, at that time, there was no one to challenge the evidence they put forward. When I was at Pilning Junior School my teacher pointed out that the reason people in earlier times didn't take care of their hygiene, thereby risking their health, wasn't because they were stupid - it was because they were ignorant ('though some would say innocent). Ignorance, unfortunately, seems these days to imply a failing in an individual rather than simply that someone has a lack of specific knowledge about something. It's easy to take for granted the reason why people get up in the morning, brush their teeth, wash their face, have a shower perhaps, and being that we just do these things "automatically" if others don't then we assume they're stupid. I'm reminded of the scene from the film "Demolition Man" where Sylvester Stallone has to be told how the three shells work. Maybe you and I are ignorant of it too?

However, when it comes to those ancient mystics who once held so much power, if they hadn't put forward their view maybe no one would have countered it and we today would be much less advanced than we are.

When it comes to confronting issues in life; whether they be small everyday issues like whether we want a cup of tea or major matters such as proposing marriage, considering children or buying a house, then we have to make a concious decision using our powers of reasoning, skill and judgement, we call this 'choice'. However, these powers will also have to take in to account what our situation is at the moment and what we envisage it to be once the decision is made. So how do we evaluate our current situation or, indeed, envisage the situation in a speculative future "universe". I propose that no individual person can make a decision without historical personal experiences to construct that decision on. It might be that the person makes these decisions conciously and purposefully, aware of past experiences and using them to inform the decision, but it is likely that the person's decision is more often, and with more effect, influenced by things that are less tangible and not directly brought to mind. These influences are represented in the mind in terms such as 'character', 'style', 'temperament', 'disposition' and most significantly 'beliefs'.

These characteristics (for want of a better word) only exist due to life experiences. Not necessarily since birth, life experiences could even include the life experiences of the parents or indeed of ancestors going back generations. I'm not just referring to genetic characteristics inherited by DNA replication, there is also less tangible inheritances in 'culture', 'tradition', 'nationality' and learned 'genealogy' that affect us unknowingly as well as knowingly. Of course, it may also be recent experiences - and understandably these are likely to be stronger.

However, it's also the case that we live within several sorts of environment which shape and otherwise inform our behaviours and actions. Environments such as; physical (always), emotional (often), productive (sometimes), relaxing (on occasions) and others. The environment does not just refer to the physical location in space and time, it's what's around us at that moment and how what's around us, interacting with our physical senses, makes us 'feel'. It gets even more complicated in some ways, for it could also be argued that the less tangible life experiences I've decribed in the previous paragraph could also be interpreted as 'environmental' factors, but that shouldn't matter as I propose both 'catalysts' are relevant to behaviour as long as all factors are taken in to account.

With this in mind it means that the argument 'free will' versus 'fate' is redundant. There's no 'free will' if our actions and behaviours result from that which has gone before, and it's not 'fate' if these actions and behaviours are affected by the environment(s) we find ourselves in. In genetic studies many people are 'cottoning-on' to this idea by saying that people born with a particular genetic condition are more likely - or have a greater propensity - to develop a certain type of condition. Rather than saying such-and-such a gene can cause such-and-such a condition, or what's commonly known as "Cause and Effect".

Now I've got this far, it's time to explain the sub-heading I introduced this dissertation on; - "Means, Motive and Opportunity".

No doubt many will recognise this expression from any number of 'Agatha Christie' style or TV detective shows. Usually, it is the mark by which a suspect of a crime becomes the prime suspect or even proves the suspect's guilt. This is based on the premise that if you can show that the suspect had available the means to commit the crime, the motive to carry it out (what English, and other, law calls the 'Mens Rea') and had the opportunity (basically was in the right place at the right time) then that person was almost certainly the culprit. However I realised that these principles could also apply to any situation where a behaviour or action takes place. I would also take it further and say that it could apply, not only to human behaviours but also anything else; Animal, Vegetable or Mineral. However, I don't intend to pursue the relevancy of anything other than that of Human behaviour for the moment at least.

Means.

At first I was considering this to mean anything that exists, ie. has a physical presence that can be touched using our 5 senses. However, this is only half the story.

It's really all about how we interpret the world, how we assimilate what is physical and 'real' into our thoughts and thought structures. It's also about how those things can be moulded into possibilities not directly experienced with our five external senses by using our imagination. Put bluntly it's about 'what is' and 'what could be'.

It must be remembered; that which exists, or could exist, is something that potentially contributes to our environment. Therefore it has an effect on what we do or say. Often not directly or overtly but discreetly or covertly, perhaps what could even be described as 'insidiously'. So even if we do not appreciate consciously the significance of something physical (whether real or imagined) it does not necessarily mean that thing has an insignificant effect on us.

There are many things, for instance, that we have a physical interaction with; things that we, one way or another, use as tools. Vehicles, Musical Instruments, Surgical Instruments, Eating Utensils, even the Computer I'm using to write this blog. There's also places; I'm currently writing this at my local Library for instance. Now if I think about it consciously, there's no reason why I have to sit-down and type this; I could stand. However, it might seem odd to others if I stood for an hour typing, and it would be somewhat uncomfortable for me, but I wouldn't have an option if the Library didn't provide chairs - and, in fact, it's unlikely that whoever was responsible for introducing computers to the Library didn't immediately consider that people who use them would also want to sit down. So that person had, not only, to consider the 'accessories' required in setting up a computer system, but also the bodies that would be using it. After-all one must remember that people, human-beings, are also things that exist, they're a "Physical Manifestation".

In summary, all that exists (and we have experience of, however significant) has an effect on us, or at least a potential effect on us, but even a potential effect is, in this instance, an effect.

Was watching "Qi" last night, this a good example of what I mean by "how we interpret the world": 'Optical Illusions with an Einstein Mask - QI Series 9 Ep 1 - BBC Two'


Motive

I should point out at this stage that the terms 'Means, Motive and Opportunity' are not mutually exclusive and hence are likely to have an effect on each others existence. I would consider it implicit to the model that one would have to have some level of all three terms to exist in order for an action or a behaviour to exist, although I'm not declaring without mitigation that this is the case. However, in considering all three in terms of how one might describe a 'Means', a 'Motive' or an 'Opportunity' it is clear that there is often some ambiguity as to which category a particular description might apply to.

'Motive' I would probably describe as the most complex of the three categories. None-the-less, or probably because of that very fact, it provides the most "input" to realising how and why any behaviour or action takes place, especially regarding humans. In the physical world Motive, more than Means or Opportunity, is carried around with us. It is created, one way or another, in the brain (although if we look at more general behavioural aspects, which I don't plan to here, it could be described as permeating the entire body). As I've mentioned already, Motive might initially be created recently or during embryonic development, or possibly even before that. It might be strong, it might be weak. It might result in a major incident or a "non-event". It's also unlikely, possibly even impossible, that any action or behaviour would be as a result of one single 'Motive'.

As 'Means' is subject to two influences 'what is' and 'what could be', and 'Opportunity' is related to 'time' and 'place' then it seems to make sense (at least in humans) that 'Motive' should also have a "binomial" personality. Clearly there is a division in how decisions are made in the mind, and it's decisions that are at the root of the creation of
Motives. - This, in turn, clearly infers that there is often a "feedback loop" as Motives themselves are an intrinsic part of forming conscious decisions.

Conscious decisions - conscious motives; then there must be unconscious decisions - unconscious motives. I'm not sure that in defining these paradigms they are best described in terms of conscious and unconscious as too many parallels will, no doubt, be drawn with the "old-man" himself Sigmund Freud. I feel describing these ideas as 'subjective' and 'objective' might also be correct in many ways and I certainly don't think of the 'unconscious' as having mastery over the 'conscious' necessarily, as Freud did.

In my anger at my own behaviour and, occasionally, actions; I have been known to curse God for making me in such away that my 'conscious' mind (and Society in general perhaps) chastises me for. Spending too much of my time trying to understand human behaviour for instance, when instead I could be a real boy. On the other hand, there is an expression that probably defines my point quite well; "The heart wants what the heart wants". This basically proclaims to the listener/reader that there is an "essence" of the human mind that cannot be properly described in words or in a logical sense; it is just a "feeling". But it doesn't mean to say that it isn't real.

Clearly some will have spotted already the parallels with that of the two hemispheres of the Brain. The left hemisphere being concerned with Logic and the right with Art and Creative Imagination. It is true that much of what I talk about here is stuff that's already been discovered. However, my "angle" is to point out how the two sides "Logical" and "Artistic", "Conscious" and "Unconscious", "Tangible" and "Intangible" relate to our behaviour.

Going back to the points I made about "events" and "micro-events"; it seems clear to me that any action or behaviour is a result of decisions made that were affected by earlier events that caused decisions affecting neurons in the brain at that time.

One example might be seen in the 'Einstein Face' mentioned earlier. Stephen Fry (you may have guessed he's quite a hero of mine, despite being a poof - no offence intended there Stephen) attempted to explain what was happening by pointing out that to other humans the human face is quite important, especially to an infant as it needs to discerne between it's Mother, or at least a friendly face, and anyone else. The same thing might explain the idea that identification of a face, especially a celebrity or famous person, is often quicker and invariably more accurate when the "witness" is presented with a caricature rather than an actual photograph. It would tend to advocate the idea that because early on in a person's life, possibly before they were even born, there were processes in the brain that were being "tuned" so as to be able to identify features of the human face (or maybe a Wolfe's face in the case of Mowgli ) and without those earlier "pre-decisions" (earlier I said "micro-decisions", "pre-decisions" might be a better term) the ability to see the image so precisely in the mind and identify it, despite not being an exact likeness, might not be possible.

It's already been well documented that learning is basically about neurons making new connections in the brain and strengthening and weakening others. It's all a bit ambiguous though. Yes it's true that something, let's say 'how to tie a tie' starts off complicated and becomes easier after one has done it a few times, and before long becomes second-nature. It's said then that this is down to neurons making 'permanent' connections. But what makes someone want to tie a tie in the first place? Obviously it's down to motives (small 'm') but why do those motives result in "waking" that neural connection?

When I was young, the 1970s/80s, I was very interested in this new thing that was starting to become available; the Personal Computer. I bought all sorts of electronics and computer magazines and eventually was able to afford a build-it-yourself kit from 'Sinclair Research Ltd.', the 'ZX81' which I still have incidentally. I also learned alot from my brother, an Electronics Engineer, about Logic, Boolean Algebra and Binary Notation. So it is not surprising that I tend to think of decisions as being the result of two arguments 'The Decision Made' or 'The Decision Not Made'.

Initially though, it didn't click. I think, like most people, that as decisions are able to be multiple (often a "choice" between two things; Tea or Coffee, Gay or Straight, Black or White, but could be more; choosing paint or fabrics to decorate your house for instance) then there must be some kind of 'balancing act' going on in the brain to allow a decision to be made, something is adjusted until the bias is overwhelmingly in one direction. However, that's not really very satisfactory as an explanation. I would imagine in such a situation that one could be re-evaluating the decision constantly (tea? coffee? tea? coffee? coffee? tea? Ovaltine? - All the way between the lounge and the kitchen.) So I decided that, even if one is not 100% decided, it must be a case of a decision being either 'made' or 'not made', at least until another influence ("Motive") is identified.

So it came to me that when acting on a Motive the decision process must be either 'yes' decision made or 'no' decision not made, even if that decision is later rejected.

As I said; I have a background in Electronics/Computers. When I was contemplating the idea that decisions are 'made' or 'not made' and never 'only partially made' it struck me that this is analogous to how logic gates operate, in that they have either one output state or the other (in original TTL logic this was either a potential difference of 5 volts or 0 volts, represented on paper by a '1' or '0'.) After further analogy I realised that in any decision 'made' result there is a level of hysteresis that has to be overcome, similar to what, in electronic logic gate jargon, is known as a 'Schmidt Trigger'.

It occured to me (as I've mentioned previously) that actions/behaviours do not come about simply by one single cause or motive. Even what might be considered as a "knee-jerk reaction" has to rely on not just the apparent cause that happens in that instant, but "historical" (for want of a better word) considerations of why any knee-jerk reaction would be required or necessary. For instance, someone accidentally leans against a burning-hot radiator. Presumably, he/she would react violently the moment that the person realised, probably in less than a second, and move away. However, if the person had no sense of feeling (Ronald Niedermann a.k.a. The Giant in "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" trilogy, for instance) then that wouldn't happen. It's only because of previous perceptions, physical developments, chemical changes in the brain/body etc. that the reaction would happen.


How to make better decisions BBC Horizon - Pt 1.
How to make better decisions BBC Horizon - Pt 2.
How to make better decisions BBC Horizon - Pt 3.
How to make better decisions BBC Horizon - Pt 4.
How to make better decisions BBC Horizon - Pt 5.

At the end of the day all actions/behaviour come about as a result of decisions. All cognisant decisions are as a result of beliefs held by the individual - but then there are, of course, some 'mental' decisions (processes) that are not cognisant. So when you have non-cognisant decisions and decisions based on beliefs (which might or might not be accurate or based in logical certainties) then it is not altogether surprising if people have difficulty in 'seeing' things the same way. You might say - "if only we could all 'see' things without any context, belief or otherwise", but then, wouldn't life be boring like that.

PS: If anyone follows this blog and wonders why it's so infrequent, sorry, I only get two hours at the library and I have to use that for job-hunting and everything else. Also, I'm a slow typer. - See, run out of time again.