Introduction
Philosophy and science have different methods and different goals, but are symbiotic by nature. Philosophy seeks to speculates on what is possible by a deductive process, but it bases its deductions on known factors determined by scientific observation. Science seeks to prove what is based on an inductive process, but it finds the questions and speculations that drive it from philosophy. Truth is most often reached when the two disciplines are allowed full opportunity to profit from the other, yet the differences in methods often present this, to the detriment of human knowledge. This is apparent in approaches to human will. Both philosophy and science have made great strides in this regard, but they are self-limiting in their isolation. Science has made great strides in predictive analytics by examining the correlation between human choices and known factors, and philosophy has made great strides in deterministic causation; but both are limited approaches. A scientific study of correlation produces impressive results, but correlation is capped in its potential, while a philosophy of causation is limited in its usefulness by lack of testable data. The “holy grail” of any study of the human will is a scientific examination of causation. This essay is a first start in that direction. It is an attempt to philosophically speculate on what a science of causation might look like: how inner characteristics and outside forces combine to create the choices humans make. This author proposes that individual human choices are determined by the combination of inner characteristics and outside factors, and can be expressed mathematically by the following equation:
2) A⃗=〈x∠θ〉
3) C=RE
4) D=A⃗(∑CP)
5) W=Σ[〈x∠θ〉(ΣREP)]
Where-
1) x= any real number between 0 and 1
2) R= any real number between 0 and 1
3) E= any real number between -1 and 1
4) P=1
And variables are defined as-
1) W= will
2) D= Desire
3) A⃗= Affections
4) C= connective forces
5) R= perceived relevance
6) E= Evaluated weight
7) P= perceptions
While this formula was developed by study and experimentation, the unconventional nature of such endeavors makes it impossible to record such efforts in testable, laboratory conditions. Thus, I will make no attempt to defend this proposition, leaving it to more astute scientists and philosophers to evaluate and further refine this formula according to the strictures of their disciplines. I will simply explain this formula one theorem at a time, and make a few comments on application.
1) W=ΣD
This first proposition is entirely philosophical in nature, and is the single foundational assumption of this entire proposed formula. If will truly is the sum of desires, then will is by nature determined, understandable, and predictable; however complex the desires, and however numerous the variables. The best and most consistent philosophical approaches to human will support this assumption, but it is by no means conclusive. However, the enormous strides in predictive analytics lend credence to this supposition. Predictive analytics relies on correlation between known factors and human choices (i.e.: people who buy product A are more inclined to buy product B), but for this level of predictable correlation, there must be some measure of uniform causation in human decision making. While predictive analytics is powerless to explain causation, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that uniform causation must exist. Human will cannot be random or independent, or all correlative models would fall apart. Thus, human will must be tied inextricably to human desires. Expressed in lay terms, an individual can choose whatever he wants, but he can only choose what he wants. Thus, if human will is tied to human desires, the factors that influence human desires will have a direct, predictable effect on human will.
Human desires are not uniform. They are myriad and contradictory. Thus, humans often make individual choices contrary to specific desires, but their decision is always an accurate reflection of the sum of their total spectrum of desires. For example, an individual who loves ice cream may well pass by an ice cream shop contrary to his desire because he has an even more powerful desire to eat healthy. Will does not equal desire, it equals the total sum of desire. If this proposition is true, then an accurate understanding of what constitutes human desires will lead to an accurate understanding of human decisions. Thus, this philosophical concept can be expressed mathematically by the simple equation proposed.
2) A⃗=〈x∠θ〉
Any examination of human desires must first begin with an examination of inner values, called “affections.” Affections are the most basic drives of an individual, and constitute the very basics of an individual’s personality. There are physical affections, such as the basic desire for self-preservation and other purely physical drives. There are also immaterial drives unique to humanity, commonly understood as rational and emotional drives. Every human has the same set of affections, likely no more than a few hundred, though it is beyond this author’s ability to determine and categorize them. Individual uniqueness is found in the specific intensity and direction of these affections. For instance, all humans, without exception, have a “fight or flight” drive. This is an affection. However, there are individual differences in the specific direction of this drive: some more prone to fight and some to flight. There are also individual differences in intensity, with some people being more affected by this drive than others. This drive can generate a myriad of specific desires depending on how it interacts with outside factors, but the basic affection remains the same. There is a tremendous degree of inertia in an individual’s set of affections. Typically, one’s basic values relative to specific affections solidify in the formative years, and only change when extreme forces are exerted upon the personality. Thus, one’s will and desires are quite changeable, but affections change only slowly and slightly.
Affections can be mathematically expressed as vectors on an x,y plane, and are composed of a specific magnitude between 0 and 1, at a specific angle within the 360-degree spectrum. These represent the direction and intensity of the basic drives of the individual. An affection with an x value of 0 indicates no specific drive in that area, where an x value of 1 indicates a strong drive. This intensity combines with outside factors in the determination of the intensity of desire, as will be detailed below. Θ indicates the direction this specific affection points within the plane. Specific affections tend toward similar θ values, but there are nuanced individual differences. Outside factors cannot affect direction, thus the θ value of the affection will always determine the direction of the desire. Thus, an individual’s set of affections form the baseline by which all perceptions of the outside world are interpreted and activated.
Since these affections, divorced from outside factors, form the essence of an individual’s personality, personality can thus be expressed as the sum of an individual’s basic affections, or S〈x∠θ〉. Given the infinite number of values of x and of θ, there are thus an infinite number of personality vectors, but they can all be expressed upon a single x,y plane and exist in a mathematically expressible relationship to all others. This could conceivably form the basis of a more descriptive and accurate classification of human personality if full enumeration and categorization of human affections could be achieved. Even with the limited, conceptual nature of this system at the moment, various forms of data can be used to create a personality profile that, due to its mathematical nature, can be used to interpret and analyze data more efficiently. With a working profile, generally accurate predictions can be made regarding how specific individuals will respond to specific stimuli; or what stimuli must have been present to create the known decisions. This gives a powerful, albeit intuitive and under-developed, tool with which to enhance existing analytical processes.
3) C=RE
Individuals do not exist in isolation, but are in a state of constant interaction with the world around them. The interaction between an individual’s perception of the outside world and his own affections are what give shape to the desires that determine his will. But perceptions are not all equal in their effect on desires. There are mental processes of evaluation that determine the extent to which specific perceptions effect desire. These processes take place constantly within the mind of all individuals, and are thus intrinsically simple and universal. These are the connective forces: the processes by which the individual interacts with his world. The differences between these forces in different individuals are what create the great difficulty in predicting human behavior. Individuals do not react to the same perceived realities in the same way. Yet all their infinitely variable reactions are formed by a common set of processes: namely, the perceived level of relevance of a perception, and the evaluated weight.
Humans are subject to a near endless stream of various stimuli, most of which never have any measurable effect on desires and decisions. That is because the first set of processes which filter and sift our perceptions is their perceived relevance. Each perception which passes our senses is automatically measured against our affections, and a specific value of relevance is attached. The fact that the walls of a room are green will have a negligible perceived relevance when paired with the “fight or flight” affection, while the fact that the assailant has a gun will have a very high perceived relevance. A value of 0 indicates that the perceptions has no measurable effect upon the specific affection, where a value of 1 indicates the greatest possible degree of relevance. Thus, perceptions with a higher R value will have a greater effect on the specific affection, and thus, a greater effect on desires. It is quite common for a single perception to have different R values when paired with different affections. Thus, the same perception might have a profound effect on some aspects of an individual’s desire, but a negligible effect on others. Each individual has a total R value capacity, which varies from individual to individual. A total R capacity of 1 represents the average. Individuals with an R capacity greater than 1 have a capacity for stronger, yet more contradictory desires that are affected by a greater number of perceptions. Individuals with an R capacity less than one tend to have more predictable and moderate desires that are affected by relatively fewer perceptions.
The second of the connective forces is the evaluated weight. Every perception that receives a non-zero R rating will automatically be assigned an evaluated weight. How much does this perception influence the specific affection? This evaluation is both emotional and intellectual. It can be influenced by knowledge, and by experience. Thus, an individual who has no idea what a “calorie” is will assign a zero value to the evaluated weight of the calorie counts given on a store menu; while a dietician will assign it a very high value. But since this is a subconscious process, some factors that make up an individual’s evaluation might be entirely emotional and experiential. Instinctive racial prejudice, for example, can be the result of an entirely emotional evaluation that gives exaggerated weight to an individual’s skin color. Evaluated weight can be any real number between 1 and -1, which means it can influence the intensity of the affection vector in either positive or negative way, according to the angle of the original vector.
Connective forces operate in individuals differently. In some people, their connective forces are more conscious, where in others they are more unconscious. When they are more conscious, they are more within the control of the individual, and more prone to change based upon education and conscious choice. When they are more unconscious, they are more difficult to change, and easier to predict and calculate. Also, some individuals create a definite pattern with their connective forces, while others vary more substantially. The exact nature of this difference has yet to be determined. Mathematically, the connective forces act as an intensifier. The affections are what determine the angle and base value of the desire vector, but the connective forces determine the magnitude of the vector.
If the causes of divergence could be successfully investigated, and the factors which create the connective forces be more fully understood, the individual’s personality profile could be augmented with an interaction profile. With the base personality and interactive tendencies mathematically calculated, human actions cease to seem unpredictable. Though they vary in infinite ways, the way an individual responds to specific stimuli could be predicted and calculated within a probability matrix. Also, his decisions could be analyzed to form a list of probable stimuli which created those decisions. While this level of precision is even farther from completion than the personality profile, an imperfect, conceptual knowledge of these forces helps to add value to traditional analytics. People with inherently low R capacity and more unconscious connective forces can have their interactions with the world accurately, albeit only generally categorized and predicted. In such individuals, (and to a lesser extent, all individuals), this interaction profile, when combined with the base personality profile gives the analyst a powerful tool with which to understand available data and make stunningly accurate predictions.
4) D=A⃗(∑CP)
Here is where the previous factors combine to form the desires which we see and experience every day. But before the combination can be analyzed, the new variable, P must be explained. P is, quite simply, a perception. These are the things we take in with our senses or imagine every day: the sky is blue, the wind is blowing, the flowers have an odor, etc. It is important to note that, when dealing with human will, perceptions do not always equal reality. A car may be barreling down the road, yet an individual might cross the road simply because he doesn’t see the car. The mere fact that the car is there is not a perception unless it registers with the senses. Furthermore, individuals sometimes sense things that are not really there. The perception that someone is chasing you need not be real in order to influence your decisions. Perceptions, in themselves, are equal: each having a mathematically neutral value of 1. It is only when they are combined with the above-mentioned affections and connective forces that they effect the vector of human desire.
A desire is a vector, expressed on an x,y plane. It is the result of the vector A⃗ and the intensifier, ∑CP. There can be as many desires at any given moment as there are affections, but they are all expressed on the same plane. At every moment of every day, the individual’s mind is creating these desires by running the stream of perceptions through the affections that make up his personality according to his specific connective forces. This process is largely subconscious and instinctive. Desires can have an infinite variety of magnitude and direction, but they are never random or unpredictable: they are always the result of the functions explained above. There is a reason I am craving a vanilla milkshake at this given moment: it is a function of the above variables. Thus, desires are intrinsically predictable and analyzable. Even if the math is beyond our full understanding at this point, the fact that desires are mathematically created and mathematically expressed has tremendous implications to the science of analysis, and the understanding of mankind.
If the above variables could be explored to their fullest and mathematically expressed in definite terms, human desire would be entirely analyzable. Since the processes are simple algebraic functions, known factors could be used to determine unknown factors. Known desires could lead to definite conclusions about affections, connective forces, or perceptions, and vice versa. This would be of tremendous value to analysis, allowing for exponential increase in usable conclusions drawn from the same data sources. It also allows seemingly insignificant data sources to have a profoundly valuable effect on analysis, creating additional usable data streams for the analyst. Full development of this theory would also make human desires entirely predictable. Predictive analytics already does this, but it requires massive amounts of data and can only form general probabilities. The science of causation could conceivably give startlingly specific and accurate predictions of desires using far less data. Such a full understanding of the science is currently out of reach (and may be impossible), but the potential is unlimited.
Even in its infancy, this science is profoundly useful with current analytical tools. Data is easy to find; usable data is difficult to find. Using these tools, even conceptually, allows significant conclusions to be drawn from insignificant data. The fact that an individual has a desire for ___, when considered in algebraic relationship to the other variables can lead to significant conclusions about his affections, connective forces, and perceptions; and vice versa. This allows an analyst to extract greater value from available sources, and make use of previously unusable forms of data. There is no longer irrelevant data. There is no longer a ceiling to what can be extracted from available data.
5) W=Σ[〈x∠θ〉(ΣREP)]
This section will introduce no new variables, and as such, will focus almost entirely on application. With this final equation, every individual choice can be expressed as a single vector on an x,y plane by adding all desires. Every decision, great or small, is caused by the above-mentioned variables and can be expressed and understood in the mathematical relationships stated above. This unites three fundamental analytical and philosophical questions: What, Why, and Who. When we know what an individual did, we always ask “why.” This has been the realm of speculation, but with this method, it moves to the realm of legitimate analytics. And with the causes of human choices being fundamentally understandable, stemming from the nature of the individual himself, legitimate conclusions can be drawn about who the individual really is. This process can also go in the opposite direction. With a firm understanding of who an individual is (in the mathematical sense), conclusions can be drawn concerning why he choses what he does, and what he will chose in specific circumstances.
If this process could be fully developed and fully understood, the applications would be unprecedented. Human choice could be entirely predictable, and lead to a more complete understanding of human nature. Where predictive analytics is practical and limited, this science would be as philosophically significant as practically useful. The applications to a fully developed theory are too many to list, but the potential is astounding. Admittedly, full development would take decades of collaborative work from many different disciplines, and may prove ultimately impossible, but the sheer potential is tantalizing.
Yet even in its incomplete, conceptual form, this theory provides powerful analytical tools. Given any human subject, there are countless known “whats:” he ate eggs for breakfast, he wrote this specific word in an email, he robbed this specific bank. Most of these facts are entirely useless to traditional analysis. But since every “what” exists in a mathematical relationship to “why” and “who,” there are no longer insignificant data sources. Readily available data which individuals make no effort to hide can provide new avenues of research and understanding. Again, the opposite direction is also useful even with the incomplete status of the system. Given a detailed knowledge of the subjects, future actions can be predicted to a high degree of probability. Since the science is in its infancy, it is impossible to draw absolute conclusions, but it allows the analyst to create a working profile of the individual, and discern possible avenues of research that can be checked and double checked through traditional means. It may not provide the absolute answers that a fully developed science could provide, but it provides the questions that can direct the analyst to the necessary data. If it is determined that the subject would likely do ___, the analyst can search for occurrences of ___ to find their subject. If it is determined that ___ was motivated by a deep affection of ___, this aspect of personality can be compared to other known factors to see if it is viable.
Conclusion
The equation, W=Σ[〈x∠θ〉(ΣREP)] has one significant flaw: it is made up entirely of variables. Thus, it cannot be conclusively tested, and cannot lead to definite conclusions. But most of these variables could conceivably be known. Sociologists and biologists may eventually enumerate the entire range of human affections, and mathematicians could plot them on an x,y plane. Connective forces could be examined and more completely understood by psychologists. Those would be significant developments in themselves, but the possibility of a universal equation of human will adds increased significance to these discoveries; as they would become a part of a greater understanding of human nature itself. This formula is not an answer, but a series of questions, asked in relation to one another. Answering even one of these questions (expressed by variables), even in a limited degree, has the potential to reshape our knowledge of humanity, and open the doors to applications that are great and terrible. If conscious human knowledge, assisted by computer technology, could replicate the process of the human subconscious in using these factors to determine decisions, the advances of predictive analytics would be instantly dwarfed.
Even in its incomplete state, this system of understanding human will is remarkably useful to analysis. Even without known variables, understanding the interrelation of the factors that create human will allows informed, intuitive leaps that lead the analyst to ask the right questions, and find data where no one else would think to look. It allows the analyst to combine an innovative form of individual profiling to traditional data collection and incorporate it into a predictive matrix that can direct subsequent investigations. In short, even the infant form of this theory is useful and practical in a wide variety of situations. This is a beginning of a scientific understanding of the most basic philosophical questions, and as such it combines the practicality of science and the audacity of philosophy. This is a beginning. This is a question. This is potential. Perhaps someday others might bring it to fulfilment, answer the questions this essay has presented, and reach the amazing potential this formula unlocks.
