In defense of the Norns.

I am a long time follower of Loki. I have memories of hearing his voice before I was in kindergarten, and that was back in the early 80s. And I have been open about my faith since right after my high school graduation.

But because I follow our lovable ball of chaos, a lot of people are surprised that I am also an almost strict determinist. I believe that for the most part at least, the skein of fate is set. We may be able to wiggle in our cocoons, but we cannot escape the spiderweb.

Over the years, this has led to a number of intense and heated discussions. People would get angry that they couldn't change my stance, that I had considered all of the arguments that put forth. And the conversation would usually break down into them angrily storming off. This had never bothered me, until a few months ago.

My best friend found this out about me because I was listening to an Audible version of 'Determined' by Robert Sapolsky, and it led again to this discussion, and it broke down again. But for the first time I could remember, I was actually bothered by their reaction.

This caused me to re-examine what happened, questioning why they got mad, considering if I was wrong anywhere in my argument, and such. In the end, unable to find a flaw in my own logic, I took the time to meditate and really think about what happened, why, and why it happens over and over. I want to share what I found. 

But to do that I need to at least make you aware of certain ideas that influenced my realization, so let me walk you through them:

Idea #1:

Imagine you and I are walking down the street of your town, city or village, and as we pass a person I turn to them say, 'if you give me a 10 second dance, I will buy you an Ice cream." I make my offer, they make their decision, and things happen or they don't.

Now imagine, that we turn into the hospital and walking into the cancer ward and say to one of the patients, "if you give me a 10 second dance, and I will make your cancer go away." (For the sake of this example, I have this magic power, and they know it.) Again, offer made, decision made, things might happen.

We walk down a couple doors, and I make a similar offer to another patient, "give me a 10 second dance, I cure your cancer and give you an ice cream." Same as before.

Finally we step out in the hall, and I approach one of the doctors and say, "I want you to dance for me for 10 seconds."

You may notice I did not tell you what they did, that because I want you to ask yourself what you expect that they would do.

I think most of us would imagine the first person might dance, the second would probably do so, the third would almost definitely do so, and the doctor would look at me like I grew a third arm.

Why?

This example shows something inherent in all living creatures. We do not expend energy for things unless we want or need them. I call this effective laziness.

You might push back and say that you do stuff you don't want or need. But I think if you look at those things closely, those things are to get you other things, the paycheck that pays your rent, for instance.

But this instinct is core to being a creature on the physical plane. We do this, toads do this, birds do this, etc.

Idea #2:

In 1966, Peter Wason developed a question that he used in psychological experiments, that almost everyone gets wrong. It goes like this:

Imagine you have 4 cards in front of you. You know that each card has a letter on one side, and a number on the other. The cards in front of you read, A, G, 7, 9. You are told that if a card has an A on it, it will also have a 7 on the other side. Which cards do you flip over and why?

Only about 5% of people get the answer, but there is a later formulation of this question where that number jumps to 80 or 90%. It goes like this:

You are in a restaurant that serves alcohol, you are trying to make sure that no child is drinking alcohol. You have 4 cards in front of you with the person's age on one side, and their drink on the other. They read, 12, 35, soda, wine. Which do you flip over and why?

Let's go through the answers quickly. In the first question, you must realize that it's a one way rule, an A has a 7, but a 7 might not have an A. So we check the A card, to verify the 7. We have no need to check the G so we leave it. You might want to check the 7, but since the 7 doesn't guarantee an A, you don't need to. You do want to check the 9, because an A would prove the rule untrue.

In the second question, we check the 12 year old, we don't want them drinking. The 35 year old can drink what they want, so we leave that card untouched. Likewise, we don't care how old the soda drinker is, but you better believe that you would check out who was drinking the wine.

I want you to notice that the solutions are identical, card 1 and 4, but the first is so much harder, isn't it?

I personally believe that this is because the second version has a hidden emotional component. We care if a child is drinking.

This shows, it seems to me, that we will expend energy for things we care about. This feeds into Idea #1, we want an outcome that we find pleasant, and work for it.

Idea #3:

If you talk to a sociologist about relationships and how they work, they will talk about how human interactions are transactional in nature. This wording is unfortunate, as a lot of people shut down because of it. The problem is that the word has a slightly different meaning in this context. They are not talking about just buying and trading gifts, but the human tendency to give to those we care about. You might buy your mom a present, or do a good deed for a neighbor, or comfort a crying friend. I don't think with that context that most still have an issue with it.

But there is another, hidden side to this. And to talk about it, you might get a little uncomfortable.

If we were walking down the street, and we saw a couple, obviously together, obviously happy, where the man was in his 60s and the girl in her 20s, you might get a little uncomfortable. After they pass by, you might feel the need to comment on it, say things like, 'I hope she's not a gold digger,' or say, 'what is he doing with someone half his age?' 

We make these comments because we have an urge to see fairness in relationships, not only for ourselves, but others as well, and we become instinctively protective of someone taking advantage of another. We instinctively assume that someone is harmed or in danger when something like this happens for that reason. If you think about the questions, I think that should be obvious to most. We see no violation of the person's rights, or breach of the law. But we still feel the need to check.

Now, let's go back to the fight I had.

It started out as they usually do, logic, discourse, evidence and counter evidence. But it also ended the way they usually do, a specific question is asked, and the conversation disintegrates quickly. The question?

'Do I have Free Will?'

I want you to take a moment with your thoughts before we move on. I did not say who asked the question. I did not describe how it was said. I did not tell you the reaction of the person being asked. 

But you filled in that info, didn't you?

Why?

Why did you expend that energy? And why did the answer come so quickly?

It's because the question is not about logic, or facts, or science, is it?

What they are saying is, 'Do I have a choice? Do my decisions count? Do I have any real power?'

It's a person, asking if they matter. If the universe around them has any fairness in it at all. Logically, the answer is no. If you go through the science, the answer is very clear. Most people are aware of the tests that have been run that say, when you stick people in an MRI machine and ask them to make choices, the answers appear in their brain several seconds before they are aware of the answer. 

Most think that it is a few tests, it is not. There have been thousands of these test, over decades, that prove this. There is more solid evidence for this fact, then there is establishing gravity. 

But the truth is, no one, not even the most bitter and cynical among us, can easily look into another's eyes and say that. 

The conversation disintegrates not because the evidence is equal, or even sufficient. It disintegrates because we are human, and sometimes truth is less important than the distress of others.