Random Musings on Free-Will, Game Theory, Social Psychology and God

Note: This is hopefully the first of a series of posts on the subject, in which case I sympathize with my readers! :P

Disclaimer: I am an Atheist, a Keynesian Capitalist (Free Markets with Regulation & Intervention) and a firm believer in Free-Will. Also, the topic under discussion is immensely vast, and is of such a scope that every human born into this world contemplates about it at some point of time in their lives, and great philosophers and public intellectuals have pondered on these questions, coming up with their own subtle variations to explaining the nature of life as we see it. I am just presenting a short snippet of my take on the subject and I am trying to stir up some conversation by being a polemicist!

Essay:

As “Neo” tells the “Architect” in “The Matrix”: “The Problem is Choice”. This is one of the most profound self-evident truths in the universe, and yet not only is it under-stated, but also flagrantly contradicted by the corporations, advertisers and by civil society in public discourse.

We are told, again and again, by people, corporations, entities and Governments that the greatest gift of the 20th century has been “Free-Will”. This statement has been sold to the public repeatedly by the entire society, as if it were a self-evident truth, and people who seek to question its veracity (with the best of intentions) are demonized as being archaic, illogical and evil. This often repeated assertion assumes that Free-Will is necessarily a good thing – that man is happiest when he is given the freedom to choose, that civilizations with immense freedom are necessarily the ones which are the most productive.

Lets try to deconstruct that for a moment.

• Assertion #1: Main is happiest when he is given the freedom to choose:

  Psychologist Barry Schwartz, in an acclaimed TED Talk [3], takes aim at a central tenet of western societies: freedom of choice. In Schwartz's estimation, choice has made us not freer but more paralyzed, not happier but more dissatisfied, not clearer but more confused.

• Assertion #2: Civilizations with immense freedom are the most productive:

  It is true that the Soviet Union collapsed spectacularly and this is taken irrefutable evidence of the failure of Communism/Socialism and conclusive evidence in support of Free societies. It is worthwhile noting that the Soviet Union had immense power and influence in the world for almost half a century – its power and influence almost rivalling that of the United States. That its power/influence thrived successfully for four decades is indicative that Socialist societies could indeed be productive and influential. Furthermore, it is also worthwhile noting that the Soviet Union, despite lacking political, economic & religious freedom, made very tangible and significant advances in nuclear technology, space exploration technology and other products and services.

Scientists and biologists have discovered that based on current evidence, it can be concluded that an individual’s sexual orientation is a combination of genetic, hormonal and environmental factors [1][2]. Who is to say that in another decade or so, the scientific community will say the same thing about the tendency of an individual to commit murder or perpetrate violence? This is indeed a scary thought, but it may very well be true – that human beings could possibly be merely biological automatons who live out their lives computing a function (which determines sexual orientation, political beliefs, religious inclinations, compassion/arrogance and other aspects of human behavior), which is encoded not in Binary logic, but the logic of the four nucleotides that constitute the DNA.

I am not saying that Free-Will is a bad thing or that Democracy should be abolished or that we should return to anarchy/totalitarianism (Don’t worry! I am no Noam Chomsky or Naomi Klein!). But we must seek to constantly introspect, contemplate and question the foundational assumptions behind every important assertion (especially if the assertion is held to be self-evident and forms the moral and epistemological basis for modern civilization). And we must admit that our knowledge of the universe and the origin and nature of life is still in its infancy and that as science and technology progresses, we might find alternative explanation models for existing philosophical and moral conundrums.

Now let us say that Free Will exists and that it is a wonderful and noble thing.

Human beings are not strictly speaking universal turing machines, although we are analogous in some respects – we don’t function in a strictly algorithmic way, that is to say we do not function as per a mechanical procedure. Our lives are filled with uncertainty, decision-making, heuristic evaluation and intuitive assessment of goals, rewards and penalties with a streak of irrationality and emotions thrown into the mix. Every choice that an individual makes is predicated upon an inner (partially innate, partially inherited, partially acquired) complex heuristic function, which tries to comparatively assign priorities and subjectively assess various possible decision-paths in life. This heuristic function is individualized and customized to suit the sensibilities and tastes and preferences of that particular individual, and takes into account religious views (Christian/Jew/Atheist), economic ideology (Capitalism/Socialism), political stance (Conservative/Liberal), moral stance on several issues (Abortion, Death Penalty, Euthanasia), and a plethora of other attributes including perseverance, ambition, resourcefulness, etc. The nature of decision making and heuristic evaluation of decision-paths is thus a subjective process, for which there does not exist an objective numerical rating system. Furthermore, there is no universal de-facto standard composition/configuration of the heuristic function, which applies and scales equally well to all individuals.

It is precisely because of these reasons that the study of Social & Cognitive Psychology is so important and critical to eventually find the true nature of Free-will, ascertain the degree and semantics of the choice we exercise, figure out the exact neuro-cognitive thought processes that help us making decisions, and finally to possibly extrapolate these results into formulation of effective Government policies. Furthermore, Game Theory (and certain elements from Mathematics & Computer Science) involve the use of heuristic evaluation functions, which try to objectively assess the utilitarian benefits of a particular decision path, with the intention of finding a reasonably optimized (if not perfectly optimal) decision path. By its very definition, a heuristic is NOT an objective evaluation but is a subjective assessment of the utility value of a given configuration in the search-space, and most heuristics are based on a concoction of rational thought, empirical observations, logical deduction and critically human intuition.

Game Theory seeks to understand bargaining, pricing and competition – but it does so with the assumption that people plan ahead and carefully figure out what others will do, which often results in mathematical claims that are highly unrealistic cognitively. An interesting article [4] suggests a theory called “Cognitive Hierarchy Theory”, that a key part of strategizing by predicting the behaviour of other people (or corporations, or countries), involves thinking about what the others think you will do. One can extend this line of thought to also include the factor of thinking about what others think you think …. And so on. And as can be clearly seen, the intersection of cognitive/social psychology, game theory and neurological sciences is something that deserves celebration and applause, for it will bring forth many critical insights into several aspects of human behaviour.

Finally, as an ending note, I wish to emphasize a point made by Christopher Hitchens about the popular conception of the linkage of Free-Will with Existence of God. The religious dutifully and sincerely believe that Free-Will can only be explained by the existence of God – that He (or She for the feminist-conscious) is the one who grants Man with the capacity of Free-Will and confers upon us the right to choose our own path. But by the very definition of Free Will, if it is granted explicitly by a supreme creator, then it CANNOT be called “Free-Will”. Its like a Database Administrator granting privileges to Database users – the administrator is permitting freedom of access, but has the power to strip away the privileges at any time by a simple SQL command. God (if he exists, which I believe is not the case) too can execute SQL and strip Man of Free-Will – thereby defying the very notion and semantics of the concept “Free-Will”. Who would have thought that the religious unwittingly portray God as a Database Administrator?! .... Lets see if any of you can come up with a metaphor correlating God with Operating Systems, Data Structures, Algorithms or Web Programming! :P

References:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation
2. http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/genomics/2002/pierce/gaygene.htm
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VO6XEQIsCoM
4. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090215151809.htm

Also Posted On:
* CS8803 HHH (Spring 2011 Georgia Tech) Class Blog: http://happyhealthyhome11.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/random-musings-on-free-will-game-theory-social-psychology-and-god/

* Facebook Note: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150176561669006

Pop Vs Rock vs Other Musical Genres and other Nonsensical Stuff

NOTE: Commenting For this post has BEEN CLOSED! .... As the principal characters involved have already commented.

The following post is meant only for my college buddies and may not be understood by my other readers! This is the 1st time I am departing from the tradition to blog about General National and International issues and write something regarding college life and its controversies!



A burning debate seems to have engulfed the entire country, which threatens to divide the people into two groups bitterly opposed to each other, resulting in Political and Musical strife. It may also spill out as a Musical civil war, which could leave thousands of innocent MP3's and 3GP's (read women and children) dead and deleted .... well, ahem, not quite .... mebbe not the nation - to be more precise the entire city of Mumbai .... well, ahem, another over-statement .... Forget a nation of 1 bn people or a city of 10 mn people - It certainly has managed to get a small group of nobodies n wannabes (which includes me:P) within our class all worked up! :P

At the core of the debate lies the important issue of the dominance and superiority of one musical genre over another. Music-Lovers (and those non-living entities who dont listen to any music) are divided broadly into two categories -
1. Those with a agile and nimble neck (for the purpose of the rather energetic and rythmic oscillations of the neck, that could very well give Giraffes a neck-sprain :P) and high on profundity and psychobabble prefer Rock!
2. Those low in the aformentioned criteria prefer listening to 'Pop' :P


So the question is - Is Rock better than Pop? Or is it the other way around? Consequently, the Corollary: Are Rock-Lovers superior to those who prefer their music without all the agression (not to mention the philosophy as well)? This is a question that is so important (or atleast, seems so important to us anyways!:P), that it could well eclipse other existential problems that mankind today faces! :P .... btw here,
'mankind' = a small group of eccentric and insane people in TE Comps :P


Look at the way 'mankind' is divided - the Pop-Lovers (which consisted of a solitary individual, whom I shall now refer to as BoyZone :P) screaming hoarse on the pitfalls of Rock music and its 'superficiality'. And then we had the virulent and often vitriolic catcalls of the Rock-fans, who defended their genre with such fervour and passion as begets a man from the lairs of Osama's jihad factory! :P .... From the Rock-fans, there was one particularly agitated fan(whom I shall now refer to as Manson :P), who took very strong objections to what he claimed were the jaundiced views of an ignorant and imature(in his words 'sissy') followers of a bygone genre.


Boyzone kicked off, what at the time seemed to be a small conflict, which has now turned into full-blown war - which could have both profound and drastic (and disastrous) influences on the way music evolves in the new millenia. :P .... (alrite alrite, I shouldnt be overdoing the hyperbole :P)

Boyzone's objections were that Rock-fans were mainly "wannabes trying to get a blonde's attention" and that Rock-fans must not rubbish other musical genres. He further went on to say that "this is blatantly against those die hard rock fans[u better die :p],who consider any music other than rock as shit." He continues with the diatribe, which it seems is peppered with more such philosophical gems :P .... Manson countered with some arguments of his own, which while holding merit, also didnt fail to deliver sucker-punches to our Pop-Lover, reliving memories rather forgotten. And as it happened, both Boyzone and Manson didnt leave the opportunity to score brownie points and browbeat each other on issues totally personal and which couldnt be farthest from the focal point of the debate!! Human-nature at its best or worst - whichever way u look at it! :P


Now, just picture Boyzone as the sole Musical dictator of the planet! He gets to call the shots on the music being made! Guitar music will be dead, Britney Spears will be shown in "Headbanger's ball", Himeshji's wonderful nasal masterpieces will be played here, there and everywhere(I know thats already happening :P)!! .... If Mr. Boyzone has his way then every Rock mp3 will be deleted from the face of this planet!! No Dance of Death or Fear of the Dark or For Whom the Bell Tolls or Losing My Religion, etc!! :( .... Musical 'compositions' will be churned out by the dozen by the nasal factories of Himesh, Britney & co .... Music will be lame, loud and banal! The sounds of the heavings and farts on Mumbai's locals would seem a much better option to drown the sorrow and misery of thousands of dishevelled Rock-Lovers! :P


Now, contradictorily, picture Mr. Manson having his way! He gets to censor/approve the Music of the planet! What would then happen?? With the zeal of a man possessed by the sensibilities of his genre and quite taken away by it, he will bind the same passion on others! So, gudbye Miss Spears and Mr. Nasal Chammiya!! Hell! This doesnt seem to be a bad proposition after all! :P .... No but seriously, the melodies of ABBA - to whose tunes an entire generation danced and who viewed them with such reverance and many other melodies will be incinerated by this rock-madman in his over-zealous efforts to ensure a totalitarian world of Rock, Rock and ONLY Rock!! Hell! If he has his way, newborns will be listening to Cannibal Corpse! :P


So there u are - my take on it - back of guys, both of u! Mr. Boyzone and Mr. Manson - both ur genres are required and I say 'required' with gr8 reluctance - coz pop sucks 4 me :P .... however grudgingly I may admit, I concede that in the interests of music full of versatility and variance, its important for both genres to exist and evolve - although, I dont think they will ever learn to 'co-exist' peacefully! :P

And as far as which Genre is better! ROCK certainly is! Hands down, Legs up and Heads Banging! :P .... So, corollary : ROCK fans are certainly superior to Pop fans!! :P .... no offense to all the pop-listeners, just one suggestion - grow up! :P



PS: Both 'Boyzone' and 'Manson' happen to be close buddies - I didnt intend to hurt them - merely to laugh at the things people pick and fight on and present it in a humourous and sarcastic way.