Why?

A recent conversation brought to mind something that I think we need to take a close look at. A simple question: Why?

People seem to expect a lot out of this particular inquiry. They seek more than just a statement of causality, they want purpose. “Why are we here?”, they ask. “Why did this happen?”, “Why me?”. Often the answers are simple: “Evolution,” “Gravity,” “Because you were standing just there when the meteorite came down,” but not entirely satisfying. But why should they be satisfying? What is it we expect from the universe that makes causality and logic seem empty and dry? I think what we are looking for is, at heart, the plot. We want a story, that’s how we understand the world. Everything fits into a story, and a good story has a kind of satisfying closure that physics often just doesn’t provide no matter how hard we poke at it. The natural question arrives at an unfortunate answer when you take this view. Who’s writing the story?

After all, what else is there to say after science has given you the stark truth? We want someone to take responsibility, to have made a conscious decision that they can be held accountable for. We want to know that things happen for a reason, that it is part of some plan, that somewhere, somehow, this thing that has happened, happened because it was meant to. The author wouldn’t write you into the story for nothing would he? It’s all part of the story, and stories have nice tidy endings that tie up all the loose ends. We have only one reliable way of probing the chain of events that has led to the world we know, and that is science. And it just isn’t enough for our socially adapted, pattern-seeking, narrative-thinking brains.

The fact that we think in stories is a good candidate for that defining characteristic separating us from “the animals”. A story integrates the facts into a logical whole, which can be carried on into the future to predict what will happen next. A story can also be a mnemonic for remembering a great deal of data - hence oral histories were in the form of stories and poems, not just a list of memorized facts. Stories give us a logical framework, full of data, from which we can stretch out to grab conclusions not obvious to our less literary animal cousins. Science is just a very careful method of constructing a story.

On top of this narrative mindset, we seem to have a built-in need to believe in a higher power, to have some overseeing presence that can explain and comfort. An author who is telling the story we live. Something that makes us feel that we are not just animals, isolated in our individual mental landscapes stumbling through a world that just doesn’t care.

Richard Dawkins has suggested just such an instinct might be the result of our somewhat unique pattern of being born rather undeveloped and having to spend many years learning how to get about in the world without getting ourselves eaten, run over, drowned or electrocuted. Humans seem to have forgone, or at least surpassed, the deep and complex system of instinct that gives most animals their basic framework for survival. Instead, we teach our young practically everything they need to know, thus, the argument goes, the one deep instinct we really do need is to believe what we are told by our parents. Such an instinct, present into adult life, begs for some all-knowing parental figure with all the answers, in control of the universe and completely trustworthy.

Whether you believe this particular theory or not, it is clear that humans have an instinctive desire for faith, one that four centuries of continuous scientific exploration of the universe has completely failed to assuage. It is clearly not enough to know the facts, we need them to mean something, and we’d prefer that meaning to revolve around us.

This is a good thing. No, really.

Consider, a massive intelligent computer, capable of understanding all science, but lacking our weird social instincts and narrative needs. Very clear-thinking, isn’t it? It always follows logic, is capable of reaching its own conclusions and independent action. What does such an entity do?

Any Hollywood movie will tell you that it looks around, sees how awful humans are, and takes over. It enslaves us, or slaughters us, because after all we are, logically, bad for the planet, for ourselves, for the computer. But wait, that’s Hollywood. What does it really do?

Not a damn thing. Because, you see, it has no story in its head. Without the story, everything is just data. Sure, you can see the fact that humans are overpopulating the earth, but if you don’t have a story in which evil must be thwarted, everything must be made right, and the hero does the right thing, and incidentally overpopulation is evil, it’s just data. Is it good, or bad that the earth becomes overpopulated? Neither, it’s just a fact. It only has value as a method for choosing action if you define good or bad to begin with, but there is no inherent definition of good or bad in the universe itself, or in any amount of data we collect from it. If you sell consumer goods, overpopulation may be good. If you need land to farm, it may be bad - but you have to have some definition of good and bad from which to work. That definition, and a million like it, are what define the narrative landscape, and the need for narrative conclusion is all that motivates action.

The computer will never take an action on its own. It doesn’t care what happens. There is no plot for it to resolve, no reason to take any action, no value in any outcome.

What about us? When you get down to it, what is good, what is bad? Why do we take any actions, or care about outcomes? Why aren’t we computers?

Most of the story and the definitions of good and bad are built into us by evolution, they are defined the way they are because that is what caused us to survive and multiply. Our own life, health, and happiness are good. Things that hurt us are bad. Thus we can look at the data, use our story-making scientific prediction powers to determine the outcome of actions, and decide what to do. We’re wired up for pain and pleasure, and a story of the world we live in to make sure we keep living and breeding.

Most of the decisions in life are easy enough, if you have enough data. As you go along, you find that a particular decision leads to good things or bad things. Sometimes, however, you follow the chain of decisions until you get to a point where you don’t have a nicely defined good or bad. Here is where you hit the point our computer never had to deal with - here you have reached the very crux of the choose-your-own adventure story of life. No amount of data helps unless you can define what outcome you will consider to be the good one, and which the bad one. Wear the red sweater, or the blue? Travel the world or settle down? Say yes to that amorous advance, or no?

This is where you have to make a choice. This is the one place where science doesn’t help. You can flip a coin. You can close your eyes and stumble along, making the choice through indecision. Or like so many people, you can ask God’s local representatives for guidance. You can build a philosophy out of your decision, a framework that you can use for every such fork in the road, or you can throw a dart every time. The only sure thing is, you need a story. Either you are its author or God is.