Perhaps "why?" is a word without meaning

Like young children, we adults also love to ask Why?  It just seems so natural to want to understand why our car won't start, why our spouse is angry with us, why we've got a stomach ache. 

I'm not denying the usefulness of why, of seeking causes, of fathoming the source from which a certain aspect of reality has sprung. 

However, more and more, I'm beginning to sense that the question which we take for granted -- why? -- may lack meaning beyond the minds of us humans. 

Of course, this could be said of anything.

Even when it comes to seemingly solid scientific facts, like how electromagnetism works, it's possible to envisage an alien being with a consciousness much different from ours not being able to grasp our principles of modern physics in this area.

This being might comprehend our common physical reality in a decidedly unique way. Which could include a lack of needing Why? to make sense of things.

I've talked about this general notion in a couple of blog posts:
"Why ask 'why' if the question is unanswerable?
"There's no answer to 'Why does the world exist?'"

Regarding the latter post, it seems almost unarguable that there can't be a reason for existence existing, since the existence of that purported reason would lead to another Why? 

This is the problem with positing God as the creator of existence.

What or who created God? If the answer is "nothing, God has always existed," then one can simply say, "fine, I choose to accept that existence has always existed, which eliminates the need for God." 

Ultimately, there has to be an end to Why? But when we're talking about everyday less-than-ultimate reality, does Why? make any more sense?

I don't know for sure.

Increasingly, I'm at least wondering whether we need Why? as much as most of us believe we do. And at the edge of my perplexity about Why?, I have a dim intuition that this entire concept is a human construction that isn't part of the fabric of reality as it exists outside of Homo sapiens' minds.

Here's three sources that have contributed to this vague feeling. I'll let the quotes speak for themselves.

(1) Some lines from the movie, "Arrival," where a mysterious alien spacecraft arrives on Earth carrying equally mysterious beings. Someone has said that it is important to know the purpose of the alien visit. A linguist responds:

Dr. Louise Banks: And "purpose" requires an understanding of intent. We need to find out, do they make conscious choices or is their motivation so instinctive that they don't understand a "why" question at all. And biggest of all, we need to have enough vocabulary with them that we understand their answer.

(2) Some quotes from a New Yorker article, "A.I. vs. M.D.: What happens when diagnosis is automated?"

“Our results support the hypothesis that a process similar to naming things in everyday life occurs when a physician promptly recognizes a characteristic and previously known lesion,” the researchers concluded. Identifying a lesion was a process similar to naming the animal. When you recognize a rhinoceros, you’re not considering and eliminating alternative candidates. Nor are you mentally fusing a unicorn, an armadillo, and a small elephant.

You recognize a rhinoceros in its totality—as a pattern. The same was true for radiologists. They weren’t cogitating, recollecting, differentiating; they were seeing a commonplace object. For my preceptor, similarly, those wet rales were as recognizable as a familiar jingle.

In 1945, the British philosopher Gilbert Ryle gave an influential lecture about two kinds of knowledge. A child knows that a bicycle has two wheels, that its tires are filled with air, and that you ride the contraption by pushing its pedals forward in circles. Ryle termed this kind of knowledge—the factual, propositional kind—“knowing that.” But to learn to ride a bicycle involves another realm of learning. A child learns how to ride by falling off, by balancing herself on two wheels, by going over potholes. Ryle termed this kind of knowledge—implicit, experiential, skill-based—“knowing how.”

The two kinds of knowledge would seem to be interdependent: you might use factual knowledge to deepen your experiential knowledge, and vice versa. But Ryle warned against the temptation to think that “knowing how” could be reduced to “knowing that”—a playbook of rules couldn’t teach a child to ride a bike. Our rules, he asserted, make sense only because we know how to use them: “Rules, like birds, must live before they can be stuffed.”

...“Imagine an old-fashioned program to identify a dog,” he said. “A software engineer would write a thousand if-then-else statements: if it has ears, and a snout, and has hair, and is not a rat . . . and so forth, ad infinitum. But that’s not how a child learns to identify a dog, of course. At first, she learns by seeing dogs and being told that they are dogs. She makes mistakes, and corrects herself. She thinks that a wolf is a dog—but is told that it belongs to an altogether different category. And so she shifts her understanding bit by bit: this is ‘dog,’ that is ‘wolf.’

The machine-learning algorithm, like the child, pulls information from a training set that has been classified. Here’s a dog, and here’s not a dog. It then extracts features from one set versus another. And, by testing itself against hundreds and thousands of classified images, it begins to create its own way to recognize a dog—again, the way a child does.” It just knows how to do it.

...The “black box” problem is endemic in deep learning. The system isn’t guided by an explicit store of medical knowledge and a list of diagnostic rules; it has effectively taught itself to differentiate moles from melanomas by making vast numbers of internal adjustments—something analogous to strengthening and weakening synaptic connections in the brain. Exactly how did it determine that a lesion was a melanoma? We can’t know, and it can’t tell us. All the internal adjustments and processing that allow the network to learn happen away from our scrutiny.

As is true of our own brains. When you make a slow turn on a bicycle, you lean in the opposite direction. My daughter knows to do this, but she doesn’t know that she does it. The melanoma machine must be extracting certain features from the images; does it matter that it can’t tell us which? It’s like the smiling god of knowledge. Encountering such a machine, one gets a glimpse of how an animal might perceive a human mind: all-knowing but perfectly impenetrable.

(3) Some quotes from Daniel Dennett's new book, "From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds."

Imagine we are back in the early days of this process where persistence turns gradually into multiplication, and we see a proliferation of some types of items where before there were none and we ask, "Why are we seeing these improbable things here?" The question is equivocal! For now there is both a process narrative answer, how come, and a justification, what for.

...We can reverse engineer any reproducing entity, determining its good and its bad, and saying why it is good or bad. This is the birth of reason, and it is satisfying to note that this is a case of what Glenn Adelson has aptly called Darwinism about Darwinism: we see the gradual emergence of the species of reasons out of the species of mere causes, what fors out of how comes, with no "essential" dividing line between them.

Just as there is no Prime Mammal -- the first mammal that didn't have a mammal for a mother -- there is no Prime Reason, the first feature of the biosphere that helped something exist because it made it better at existing than the "competition."

Natural selection is thus an automatic reason-finder, which "discovers" and "endorses" and "focuses" reasons over many generations. The scare quotes are to remind us that natural selection doesn't have a mind, doesn't itself have reasons, but is nevertheless "competent" to perform this "task" of design refinement.

...There are reasons why trees spread their branches, but they are not in any strong sense the trees' reasons. Sponges do things for reasons, bacteria do things for reasons; even viruses do things for reasons. But they don't have the reasons; they don't need to have the reasons. 

...This is competence without comprehension.

Comments

[E.M.]

Nice extension from the Mukherjee article. Have you read his parallel book?

You comments are nicely captured in the phrase: "what fors out of how comes..."

Once the personal "ultimate" is decided/accepted the query "why" ceases to be meaningful.

[777]

Yes
like . . . Answer

Only
Love
is real

777

and you may call it subjective :-)

[777]

existence has always existed, which eliminates the need for God."

call It Brian
today

777

[al]

The What Why Where of our questioning nature ensures an evolutionary uptick in consciousness, while apathy and feigned contentment only confirm stagnation and restriction to sensory-intellectual information, which in turn is confined to the mundane material world. All higher beings who have graced us with writings like the Puranas, Upanishads, Gita, Poetry of Kabir/Ravi Das/Mira Bai/Soamiji Maharaj confirm higher levels of being, bliss, joy, ecstasy, knowledge and attainments. "Why" starts early for a fortunate human and invokes a serious search for one's true identity. This is the spark within, friends, solely the property of a human being (as opposed to all other species). Never let it die, rather let it evolve to "Who".

[Jen]

Really like Al's response, "What Why Where of our questioning nature ensures an evolutionary uptick in consciousness". "Why" starts early for a fortunate human and invokes a serious search for one's true identity."

I can't understand why people don't question their existence, who are we, why are we here, what is this world, what happens after we die. The spirit of enquiry, way to go!

[Chirag]

Hi Brian,

Though it doesn't relate directly to the topic of your recent post, I wanted to share this Rolling Stone article from late last year that references Sant Mat.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/syd-barrett-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-pink-floyds-crazy-diamond-20160707

Apparently, Syd Barrett (doomed genius of Pink Floyd fame) tried to get initiated by Charan Singh in the late 60s, but was refused.

Had no idea...

[al]

Thanks, Jen. The spirit of inquiry is truly a magnificent gift and separates humankind from all other known species (about 9 million by current scientific tally). Now that's saying something extraordinarily positive about our family as homo sapiens!! In my life, the "why" was a burning question mark on my forehead for a very long time. This "hot branding", if you will, prodded me to my next step spiritually and it was not unusual for me to "drop everything", even careers and mates, to follow what I believed (at the time) to be the "highest truth and highest love". Details are insignificant and I am certain readers have their own sagas to recount. The point is that only human beings can sift, winnow, discriminate and eventually commit to a spiritual path - even if that path is non-religious, path-less, atheistic or even hedonistic. We follow a road and experience its delicacies until that road becomes a dead end and is no longer fulfilling. Unlike any other animal, humans can change instinctual/habitual behavior and move towards transcendental realities that deal with the domain of conscious awareness, self realization and the ultimate realization and union with our Maker. The journey is solely in consciousness and begins with "Why". The big questions are always answered in mysterious ways that bait one to experiment and take another step. To me, life is a treasure hunt and a priceless opportunity.

[Jen]

Hi al,
I like as you say the "big questions are always answered in mysterious ways that bait one to experiment and take another step".

It makes life so very interesting because it seems consciousness (or whatever we like to call it) rewards us by giving us a nudge into looking into something different, or maybe an offshoot of an ongoing enquiry. Life is a mystery with so much to offer and hopefully we are evolving as we follow this ever changing path.

Cheers,
Jen

[al]

Hi Jen...yes to "the nudge"...or the proverbial 2 by 4 on the head! The mind loves routine and is a very difficult animal to change, especially in the declining years of our lives. Youth, it seems, is a constant "refresh" and "rebellion" to the entrenched ways and beliefs of adults. At my home we have an 18 year old that is ready to graduate from HS and, believe me, I get to relive my own rebellious youth by watching and listening to him as he attempts to find his own identity, his own understanding of this world's chaos and disputes. Thank the universe for change, Jen! Though it is difficult for any mind to adjust to rapid change, I believe we are in a time of unprecedented spiritual opportunity...a time to truly expand in consciousness, in heart and in spirit. Keep up your own internal "why" and don't be surprised if a "Who" shows up to lead you ever higher. To me, "why" is not a word with any specific meaning but an internal feeling...a yearning...fuel for one's next adventure in consciousness.

[Turan]

'Why' is in all probability a human conceptual word that has no sense or meaning. Why do I (or anything) exist is in reality irrelevant. Why does a tree grow - for example - can only lead to an infinity of 'why's'. How does a tree grow can be answered, but not why.
I sometimes feel that we ask meaningless questions and bother our poor brains to 'find' answers when all life asks of us is to live and experience - and through that process to know, to be aware of who is experiencing. Perhaps all we need to do is to respond to our life experiences rather than react to them, particularly reactive answers that support transcendental and magical thinking.
Don't worry, all is well - it (probably) can't be otherwise!

[Jen]

Hi al,

Yes, about this time of unprecedented spiritual opportunity. The pace of life nowadays is massive and I also feel this amazing change in energy happening. Duality seems to be extreme now and dreadful stuff happening in many parts of the world but I think its a good time for individual growth. Not to get too caught up in the emotional entanglement. The craziness of the world now is like a huge test. When I think about worldly stuff, then this is when I don't try to work out the "who" "where" and "why". Just accept stuff happens and continue on my own journey.

.........

Oh Turan, "bother our poor brains", so funny! Surely the brain wants to be stimulated to discover new things, new experiences. Yes, we learn from our experiences but I find life exciting because of what you call "transcendental and magical thinking". Never know whats just around the corner.

No big deal, we are all different, and I agree 'all is well' :)

[Turan]

Yes, it does sound funny the way I've put it - but, I do 'think' we spend a lot of our time thinking (doing) instead of being (experiencing) and yes, it's often nice to be stimulated by pondering unanswerable questions. What's around the corner can be beautifully exciting - as long as we don't miss now.

[Jen]

Turan, I've sincerely tried to live in the moment, just be, and all that jazz. I'm totally hopeless at it and I often think has anyone ever actually experienced just living in the moment? Maybe its impossible. Even sitting in meditation when we can keep the body still but can anyone every seriously keep their mind still? I've given up trying.

Walking in nature is the best experience for me and I find myself being in the now momentarily but I still have to reign myself in at times to actually be there and not thinking, just experiencing.

One of favourite expressions has been, "be a human being not a human doing". Now I remember that and think What The!

[Turan]

You're right Jen, there's to be a lot of 'airy fairy' talk over the years about this 'now' business. Nature does it for me too; suddenly something quite ordinary is sensed and a moment of joy arises then quickly followed by thoughts - you know, good, bad, naming it etc. I do think that initial moment is what is happening now, but I suppose the following thoughts are also happening now - they make me laugh sometimes.
I recently read Stephen Batchelor's book 'After Buddhism' (I read other people's stuff just to see how they are explaining things). He has translated many of the texts that point to a more secular understanding. A constant theme throughout the book is the Buddhist concept of suffering which he translates as reactivity. The gist being that we 'suffer' due to habitually reacting to what's happening instead of responding. The book talks a lot about how it is difficult for people to 'see this' because people 'love there place' - the conditioning factors, that we identity with and so on that determines our reactions.
For me, it explains what I feel a lot of the time and I particularly resonate with the chapter called 'The Everyday Sublime' where he says "The world is excessive: every blade of grass, every ray of sun, every falling leaf is excessive. None of these things can be adequately captured in concepts, images or words"
I do think that what we are looking for is so simple and everyday that because we are expecting something exceptional, we miss it.
Nice chatting to you.

[Jen]

Hi Turan, thanks for the reference to Stephen Batchelor, checked and found he is on YouTube and just watched "Early Buddhism and the Four Great Vows, a seminar with Stephen Batchelor, 4 March 2017". Excellent! Really liked his take on the Four Noble Tasks (tasks instead of truths). Immediately attracted me probably because I like to have something to work on, appeals to my mind for some strange reason. Going to continue with his YouTubes - kinda balances out my Netflix viewing - the other extreme!