Roads

<p>We are merely biological constructs moving on our preordained paths. Or are we? Have our kismets really been carved in granite? Or are we free agents, able to decide and execute at will? Which is more terrifying - you - as a mere passenger in the roller coaster, or you - as the operator of the roller coaster? Some argue that through thinking they are in control, they feel a greater sense of purpose and security. The former, sure, but the latter - really? </p>

<p>Let's entertain the possibility that we are the drivers. We blaze our trails. We stop at the crossroads and contemplate. We traverse the rugged terrain. This seems ideal - we're in charge. We're not mere pawns on a chess board - someone's, or some entity's, mere objects, but we are each our own object. </p>

<p>But even as individuals in control, we lack prescience. We can peer down the forks of the road, but we can only speculate as to what lies further down each fork. And this is what makes being in control so terrifying. We only have the mirage of control; we are limited by our collective myopia. We can pick which fork to take, but our choices are little more than mere guesses, based largely on whim. And sometimes, these whims can lead us on great journeys. Wait. How can my use of the adjective "great" be justified on a relative basis? It cannot. I lack the prescience to compare the result of my taking one path to the result of my taking another path. And thus, ignorance is perhaps bliss. </p>

<p>Last year, around this time, I was sitting in the guidance counselor's office, choosing my courses for next year. I had signed up for both biology and physics, but my counselor asked me, in a rather particular tone, if I really wanted to take physics. Without bothering to contemplate, I immediately replied in the negative, and asked her to drop the course. Was this the right decision? I do not know - I lack the ability to fully contemplate the alternatives. But in an absolute - rather than relative - sense, I'd venture to say that it was perhaps a good choice. If I had taken physics, I would likely have been placed in a different calculus period. And esse est percipi - to exist is to be perceived. We would likely never have met in a meaningful way. I might perceive some earthly incarnation of Aphrodite in the hallways, and she might perceive a shade of Adonis strolling around every now and then, but these impressions would have ephemeral. We'd mutually exist - but only for a fleeting moment. And at the orthodontist's office, we might sit next to each other, but only as complete strangers. The pleasant surprise, the epinephrine rush, and the conversation would never have transpired. And I would never have later tried to get the orthodontist to schedule our appointments together for another surprise meeting. And I would never have stayed up so late every night penning lengthy letters in loopy cursive and purple ink. And I would never have carried that white piece of poster board to school. And that white piece of poster board would never have been transformed into something so touching. And I would never have written this essay in quite the same way - if at all. Nothing would likely have happened the way things did. To think that this all hinged on one decision is terrifying. To think that I am liable for my own happiness and sadness is a terrifying burden to shoulder. I could easily have ended up in one of the myriad calculus classes. And this is where ignorance equals bliss. Ignorant of the myriad roads we can take, we forge on with the one road we do take, and derive whatever happiness we can from it. Perhaps there was greater happiness to be found if I had elected to take physics. Perhaps. But I'll never know. </p>

<p>Control is a satisfying illusion. But dig deeper. It crumbles. It really isn't much more satisfying than the alternative, in which we are mere trains traveling upon a fixed track. Although I contemplate these fascinating possibilities, I don't really subscribe to either theory. I just live and take whatever life has to offer me at the present moment. I am thankful for being alive; I am thankful for being able to experience all the highs - and the lows - of whatever my path is. I am thankful for being able to experience all the scenic routes - and all the potholes - of whatever my path is. And I'd like to thank you - my audience - for reading this discursive essay.</p>

<p>So yeah your post was WAY to long, so I just skimmed it. To sum it up are you saying that one has no control over their life?</p>

<p>I feel where you’re coming from and respect the angle you took with your thoughts. Have you ever looked into metaphysics, more specifically determinism? I think it will lead you down another metaphorical “road” which you may find furthermore enlightening</p>

<p>Determinism fascinates me. What especially fascinates me is the butterfly effect. As I was writing this essay, I deviated from what I really wanted to write about (the butterfly effect). To think that every one of our actions can have such all-encompassing effects is astonishing. The breath I take causes an air disturbance. This disturbance sets of a chain of events that eventually culminates into something great. Let’s say that the breath I just took kicked off a long line of events that caused a typhoon in the Indian Ocean. Ouch. Don’t want to think about that. Or let’s say my breath caused a rainstorm in New York, and a young man was forced to take shelter in a Starbucks. There he meets that someone, and that someone takes on a whole new identity to him. That’s a much more comforting thought.</p>

<p>Hey, Qube, stop being such a pseudo-intellectual. It’s annoying.</p>

<p>Mmm, your essay sounds almost exactly like the thousands of others of essays out there that focus on destiny, fate, and control. Just remember- being excessively wordy doesn’t always guarantee great writing. Your post about the butterfly effect can be summed up a lot more simply and concisely. Plus, that’s not a very original thought… So many people have written about the butterfly effect the way you do.</p>

<p>Although I don’t like to label myself as anything, I must say that I’m more of a “free will” person. The idea of determinism scares me in a sense, and I’d rather believe it to be false, even if it weren’t.</p>

<p>On the issue brought up by Disconcerted: what would it mean to will what one wills? On what axioms, principles, etc. would one rest his or her decisions? This will we have is not only a free will for which we can settle. It is a free will as best as it can be, and as exciting.</p>

<p>To address, more broadly, the thread’s point: I don’t think that determinism and free will are incompatible. If I am offered the same choice in the same setting over and over, and my choice is randomized, then the choice does not — cannot, actually — depend on my principles, except as a toggle on randomization settings. I would be a slave to randomness. There is no free will in indeterminism. Any real free will would be deterministic. </p>

<p>For this reason, the idea of indeterministic free will terrifies me, because it would be ridiculous and impossible, and it would kill meaningful free will. Some magical ethereal mind somewhere inside me is capable of making decisions detatched, not only from external circumstance, but from internal circumstance? That’s insanity. The roller coaster analogy is a good one, but if we were to expand it fully, the roller coaster would not have any tracks, and would have completely unpredictable physical laws — if any — that applied to its movement. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you intimating that fate has conspired to put you in a class with your current girlfriend?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If the universe were indeterministic, that would only make it random. It would make it impossible for you, as an agent, to ever predict the consequences of your actions. It would make it impossible to act on your principles, or to interact in a sensible way with reality. Determinism is not scary. It is comforting. And, thankfully, for all intents and purposes, it is an accurate description of reality.</p>

<p>some people, for god knows what reasons, end up seriously pondering why things in their wretched lives turned out the way they did. </p>

<p>eventually and inevitably, in some shape or form, they hit on the question of does free will exist or not. this is without fail followed by a startled gasping noise. it suddenly is not just a question to that person, but the question, and they found it all by themselves.</p>

<p>such people should avoid the question.</p>

<p>i don’t really think that’s how it goes, but yeah - while i believe there’s plenty of clarifying thinking that can be done by humans on questions like the one that is the topic of this thread, most humans can’t do that clarifying thinking, and would be better off not attempting to do so.</p>

<p>if you want to read a nice, respected book about it, that’s okay. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>lol. i would b scared to answer yes to that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The constituent particles of this universe operate in a probabilistic manner. Some argue that this makes indeterminism a reality. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I know for a fact that my BAC was higher than my GPA when I typed that.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Oh I see what you’re saying; you aren’t refuting indeterminism - instead, you are refuting “indeterministic free will.” My previous statement is irrelevant.</p>

<p>Your essay made my head hurt. I’m not really into these philosophical stuff, but It was very alarming in a weird way. I thought something like this a week ago, but I could never put it into words like you can. I’m so confused, I don’t know what to type lol. Your essay is really mind wrenching and so deep, you should write a book.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Hahahahaha. I can do what I want. However, I cannot want what I want. First, what do I want? Second, and perhaps the more nebulous question, why can I not desire what I want? Is it because we submit to naturalistic forces? Is it because man is driven solely by the will to procreate? Could my actions all be a facade for what is only an attempt to improve my fitness? </p>

<p>Fitness, biologically speaking, refers to the number of offspring you have. So on the SAT II Bio exam, when you are to choose the “fittest” individual, you’d do well to avoid bachelor body builder with no kids. You’d do well to choose the mother of three.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think I put it in words particularly well, and the sentiments of some members of my audience confirm my suspicions. But thank you for enjoying my essay :). It’s really heart-warming to see some of the raw emotion and passion that I invest in my essays resonate with you :). A book ;)? Perhaps one day I’ll compile all my CC essays and publish an anthology, one dedicated to high schoolers with erudite thoughts and especially ones experimenting with the whirlwind termed “affection” for the first time.</p>

<p>well the investment in the kids matters too. maybe the bachelor body builder will be able to protect his eventual kids much better from the dangers of the scary world than the overworked mother.</p>

<p>^Absolutely, but you are using a more general definition of fitness. For the purposes of the AP and SAT II Bio exams, and my discussion, fitness does not refer to the presence of 6 packs.</p>

<p>aw they need to append the definition to include that.</p>

<p>I suppose that the presence of a six pack is a corollary to evolutionary fitness; not only are six packs aesthetically pleasing (judging from the audience’s response to Magic Mike) but also functional.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Citations needed</p>

<p>My yoga teacher once told my class that a huge and too-hard six pack is not good. It means that the abs are constricting and shortening, and they will pull the shoulders forward and cause a hunchback.</p>