Determinism 5 – The Split Second of Freedom?

[This is a part of a series of posts on free will and determinism. The first post is here.]

In the 1980s, Benjamin Libet performed some experiments relating to the free will. He sat people down in front of a kind of clock face with a dot moving around it very fast. They could stop the dot with a flick of the wrist. Libet asked them to note where the dot was when they formed the intention to move their wrist in order to make the dot stop. He also measured via an electrode on their head when the “specific electrical change in the brain (the ‘readiness potential’)” that “precedes freely voluntary acts” occurred.

He found that the electrical change in the brain occurs more than half a second before the action is taken. And that the human subject becomes aware of the intention to act 350-400 milliseconds after the electrical change but still around 200 milliseconds before the action is taken.

This research was pounced on by those arguing that we have no free will. How can we be said to choose freely to act when the evidence for the action about to be taken is there before we are even consciously aware of it?

But Libet himself wasn’t quite as categorical about his findings. He clearly took the view that we should assume that we have free will. He suggested that his experiment showed that free will might consist in being able to veto actions that the brain proposes to undertake. In the 200 or so milliseconds between our awareness of our intention to act and the action itself, we can stop ourselves from acting. He says that sometimes the electrode showed a readiness potential in some of his experimental subjects and they became aware of an intention to act but didn’t ultimately take the required action to stop the dot moving. His conclusion is:

“The role of conscious free will would be, then, not to initiate a voluntary act, but rather to control whether the act takes place. We may view the unconscious initiatives for voluntary actions as ‘bubbling up’ in the brain. The conscious-will then selects which of these initiatives may go forward to an action or which ones to veto and abort, with no act appearing.”

The  ethical conclusion Libet reaches is that guilt and the attribution of moral wrong-doing should relate only to actions taken, not to thoughts about actions. Specifically, he rejects the kind of doctrine expressed in the Sermon of the Mount:

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart”’ (Matthew, 5.27–8).”

But those who see Libet’s experiments as proof of the absence of free will, have to force themselves to overlook the fact that Libet quotes – at the end of his article published in a scientific journal – the author Isaac Bashevis Singer who said:

“The greatest gift which humanity has received is free choice. It is true that we are limited in our use of free choice. But the little free choice we have is such a great gift and is potentially worth so much that for this itself life is worthwhile living.”

But it doesn’t end there. Psychologist and meditation teacher Tara Brach discusses the Libet experiment and quotes with approval another Tara (Bennett-Goleman) who calls the milli-seconds between our awareness of an intention forming and the physical movement to implement it, the “magical quarter-second.” Tara Brach concludes that:

“By catching our thoughts in the magic quarter-second, we are able to act from a wiser place, interrupting the circling of compulsive thinking that fuels anxiety and other painful emotions. If our child asks us to play a game and we automatically think “I’m too busy,” we might pause and choose to spend some time with her. If we’ve been caught up in composing an angry e-mail, we might pause and decide not to press the send button. The basic mindfulness tools for working with compulsive thinking are “coming back” and “being here.”

It’s time to disentangle some thoughts. Here’s what I think:

  1. Libet’s experiment is interesting but it doesn’t necessarily show any of the things he or others claimed. It could simply be a case of brain-hand-eye co-ordination takes certain amounts of time. Also, if we believe that we have free will, as Libet does, then how can we tell that the electrical charge in the brain isn’t just something we generate when we exercise our free will?
  2. The ability to say no to things that bubble up in the brain an unconvincing and unsatisfying version of free will. Surely we would want the ability to choose positively what actions to take, rather than just a power of veto.
  3. I don’t think Libet’s moral conclusions would follow from his interpretation of free will as a power of veto. In a later blog I’ll aim to argue for moral responsibility even for predetermined, not just for freely willed actions.
  4. Even if Libet’s and Bennett-Goleman’s magic quarter-second doesn’t follow from the experiments, there is clearly the possibility of a reflective space before any action. I think making use of it, and practising the ability to extend it, can make our actions better, even if not necessarily freer. This is again something I’ll want to discuss in a future blog.

 

Advertisements

Determinism 4 – Marginalising the Forces of Determinism

[This is a part of a series of posts on determinism. It starts here.]

A bit of cognitive bias can’t fully explain our strong experience of free will on its own though. The other move that we tend to make is down-playing the extent to which determinism is a force in our lives.

Sometimes the rejection of “nature” (“it’s in our genes”) as a determining factor in favour of “nurture” (“it’s in our upbringing”) is presented as a rejection of biological determinism in favour of choices we make about the way we organise society, support we give parents and children, educational policies and so on. But the point, as far as we’re concerned, is that we can’t chose what kind of home, society, socio-economic context we’re born into. We don’t choose our parents or the time and space we’re born into. Nature and nurture are forces of determinism influencing the way we are.

How is it that we reject the idea of determinism due to our lived experience of exercising free will in our every day life, but we don’t reject the idea of free will due to the influence of deterministic forces in our lives. Do we systematically avoid thinking about what it means for us that over a lot of our lives we exercise no control and have no choices to make. We do this not only by forgetting how much about is given by the circumstances of our birth, but when we don’t admit to ourselves that we perform many actions without choosing what we do.

We do this by pretending that exercising a deliberate choice is the paradigm case of action for us. We pretend that consciously deciding to do one thing after another is the normal way in which our daily life develops. Here are some of the things we need to ignore or play down in order to maintain that pretence:

Addictions: The addict does things because the addiction forces him to do so. By definition, he doesn’t chose to do them but is subject to forces outside of his control. We can blame the addict for not having got over his addiction. In doing so, we can refer to former addicts who have learned to control their addiction. “If he really tried,” we can tell ourselves, “the addict could exercise control over his life.” But in the moment where the addict is an addict, as opposed to a former addict, the addiction controls his actions. At that point, whatever happens later in his biography, the actions relating to his addiction are determined by forces outside of his control.

Phobias: The arachnophobe should be able to walk near the tiny little spider in the room to do what she needs to do. The person who is scared of heights should be able to walk up the mountain to enjoy the view. The agoraphobic should be able to leave her house like any other person. But they can’t. From a non-phobic perspective, we pretend that they’d have a choice if only they pulled themselves together. But that is a simplistic view of their condition. The phobia determines the action or inaction in this case. There is no choice.

Reactivity, Habit, Auto-pilot: But much as the forces of determinism can take obvious and strong forms, it’s just also the case, that often we act without thinking much. The science and meditative discipline of mindfulness show us that we don’t control the thoughts going through our minds which often are the basis for actions we take.

What proportion of our actions would we be want to perform after full deliberation, intentionally and conscious of all the facts having weighed up the pros and cons carefully in order to say that we are exercising free will in a meaningful way in our lives? What proportion would we be happy to cede to the forces of determinism? Is it enough to be able to say that for the things that really count, for the big life decisions and when it really matters we exercise free  will? And can we really say that? Is it enough to tell ourselves that even when we don’t, we could if we tried?

[The next post in this series is here.]

Determinism 3 – Who Is The Illusionist?

[This is a part of a series of posts on free will and determinism. It starts here.]

So assuming for a moment that we are determined creatures in a determinist universe, why would we persist in the assumption that we have free will? As the thought experiment suggests, clearly it wouldn’t be enough for us to just become convinced by the weight of evidence that we can’t have free will. We would still have the same experience of ourselves as people who have choices and make choices. Anything that would count as evidence for determinism, any argument that would have a chance of leading to a proof that we don’t have free will, would still be something that we would grasp only intellectually. I doubt that it could overturn our felt subjective experience in a moment. Any argument about free will and determinism – to be meaningful – would have to make sense of the way it feels to us to live our lives.

There is a slogan that free will is an illusion. But how does it come about? Who is the evil illusionist? If there is an illusion, then I’d say that we are each our own illusionist.

There are a number of faulty modes of thinking that are apparently systemic in the way we think. They are not the matter of anecdotal slip-ups but of series scientific study and behaviourist economics. They are the subjects of recent best-sellers, for example Thinking, Fast and Slow by Israeli-American psychologist Daniel Kahneman or The Art of Clear Thinking by Swiss author Rolf Dobelli (to whom I owe the descriptions below). There is not just one, but there are three such systemic patterns of faulty thinking that could be involved in creating the free will illusion:

  • Overconfidence Effect: This is the tendency to overestimate our knowledge, our understanding of a situation and our abilities. Economics experts massively over-estimate their ability to forecast market performance. According to Dobelli, 84% of French men say that they are better than average lovers (the relevant interpretation of average would only allow for 50% to be better than average) and the same effect can be observed if you ask people to rate themselves as drivers. Why is this relevant to free will? We may be systematically over-rating the extent to which we know what has contributed to our behaviour and our actions. We may also be over-confident in our ability to choose what goes on in our life? (Do you think you are more in contol of your actions than the average person, or less?)
  • Illusion of Control: This is the tendency to believe that we exercise control or influence over things over which we have no power whatsoever. It was observed in experiments where people were in a room with two light switches and a lamp that was either on or off. The experimenters decided to what extent the light was correlated to the switches. But people thought that they were influencing the lamp by manipulating the switches even where it switched on or off completely randomly. If this illusion is in place in our lives generally, it is quite easy to see how it could add up to giving us the feeling that we are in control of things that are really just happening while we are just flicking unconnected switches.
  • Fundamental Attribution Error: This is the tendency to look for a person behind events. A chief executive gets blamed for the bad performance of a business, or praised for its success, when in fact there are macro-economic forces and wider trends in place. The manager gets sacked if a football team doesn’t do well. Dobelli also gets upset when, as an author of novels, he gets asked to what extent his work is autobiographical. Why would readers assume that it has to be at all, when it is really about plot and language? (Though as far as I can tell, Donelli wrote a book called Thirty-five – a midlife story at the age of thirty-five which to be fair could lead his readers to think that it was a little bit autobiographical). Dobelli explains our tendency to look for people in charge of events from our evolutionary history where we are quite simply completely reliant on other people and therefore have to understand who is up to what. And so, he says, we think about people for about 90% of the time and only spend 10% thinking about the situational context. Freedom of the will could then be the fundamental attribution error of fundamental attribution errors. It could cause us to see ourselves as the people behind events in our lives, when in fact the wider environment is far more of a causal factor. It could also lead us to judge others to be more in charge of what they are doing and how it impacts on us than they really are.

When it comes to really difficult problems like free will and determinism it is helpful to be a like the fox and not too much of a hedgehog. We shouldn’t look for a single big explanation, but for a number of factors and perspectives that might contribute. Our cognitive biasses might just be some of the pieces of this puzzle.

[The next post in this series is here.]

Determinism 2 – What is the Problem?

This post is a part of a series. Here’s the first one of the series.

The majority of people who responded to my thought experiment said they would try to forget about the news and just spend their day as they were planning to do anyway. Slightly fewer people saw themselves newly absolved of responsibility for their actions and therefore went for ice cream and telly. There were also a few who were going to spend the day proving that we do have free will, regardless of the panel’s findings, some of them brought issues of ethics or religion into it. One or two just remarked that they would do whatever they were pre-determined to do and one or two others said that of course we have no free will and everything is predetermined.

Of course there is more than one problem surrounding determinism and free will. It’s worth untangling them a bit.

First of all there is a relatively straightforward problem: In the pursuit of our daily lives we appear to exercise our will freely. From minor decisions as to what kind of breakfast cereal to buy, to major life choices such as whom we should marry or whether we should change jobs, careers even, or move to a different country, our life seems somehow to be up to us. Or at least we seem to have a say in the direction it takes. And we would like to think that even with major moral dilemmas, such as – during times of war – whether to join the resistance and fight the forces of oppression, or stay at home to look after a sickly relative, we would be free to make that decision. In such cases, I suspect, many of us would prefer the ability to make our choices freely to the alternative of not choosing at all. That would remain the case even if it ultimately means having an ability to make choices that will turn out to have been bad choices, tragic choices or fatal choices.

On the other hand, we understand the universe we inhabit to be a physical universe in which things follow the laws of physics and other sciences. Bodies move according to laws of physics that we can work out through observation and the other methods of science. In that physical universe every cause has an effect and every effect its cause. Certain things follow each other as night follows day. Even where a divine spirit is assumed to be a part of this picture, this spirit is the provider and enforcer of these laws that govern bodies. And human creatures are undeniably physical beings who – as bodies – are subject to the same laws. What’s more, with the progress of neuroscience, the more we can look into the activities of tiny particles in our brains and the mental processes triggered by these activities, the more scientists conclude that the lives of our minds are as governed by these laws of science as our bodies.

Secondly, there appears to be a kind of psychological problem: In the thought experiment, we have come across an overwhelming reason to believe that we have no free will. And yet, it is not just my perverse construction of the experiment that leads us ask ourselves the question “so what do we do now?” Acquiring the knowledge that we are predetermined creatures doesn’t seem to change our sense of agency. And for the small number of people who answered the thought experiment by saying “I’d do whatever I’m predetermined to do,” the challenge would be to describe how the experience of doing so is qualitatively different from the experience of living life exercising free will. A life where we just surrender to determinism, switching off whatever faculty we think we’re exercising when making choices or decisions for ourselves, doesn’t seem feasible.

Thirdly, there is the question of responsibility for our actions. Some people found the certain knowledge that their actions are a result of determinism, rather than an exercise of their free will, liberating. They chose to sit in front of the telly and eat ice cream. Watching TV and eating ice cream are of course just representative examples for how we might chose to live our lives if we were freed from the responsibility for our actions that we normally place upon ourselves or see ourselves under. There are unlimited other things people might choose to do if they saw responsibility for their actions lifted from them. Again, isn’t it an odd and paradoxical psychological effect that the sudden knowledge that their actions are pre-determined suddenly seems to free people up to do what they always wanted to do?

But aside from the psychological effect, there’s the ethical point that a lot of people see the seeming absence of responsibility for our actions, moral responsibility in particular, as so repugnant, that they would take that as a starting point to argue against determinism. It may also be possible to rescue moral responsibility through into a deterministic picture of life and the universe.

[The next post in this series is here.]

Determinism – A Thought Experiment

You wake up one morning and as you’re going through your regular routine for starting the day, a news item catches your eye. Maybe it’s on the radio that you tend to switch on first thing to wake yourself up. Or it could be on the television that’s on in the background just to catch the morning news programme. Maybe it’s in an e-mail that someone sent you, or on one of the websites that you scan habitually as you wake up. Or perhaps you just catch glimpses of people commenting on social media.

Still half asleep, you ask to yourself “what was that? Did they really just say what I thought they were saying?” You look a bit more closely now and you realise that, yes, they did say what you thought they were saying. And it’s absolutely stunning news.

An international panel of leading philosophers, religious leaders, neuroscientists, physicists, psychologists and other worthies has finalised its reports after almost a decade of work. Convened under the auspices of the United Nations the panel was given endless resources and time to study, debate and reach conclusions amongst themselves. It set up sub-committees and working groups, drew in other scientists and people from various disciplines and held public consultations.

No one expected the panel to come up with anything clear or decisive. Everyone thought that they would conclude that the question they were asked was not one on which consensus could be achieved. People expected the panel to compile some interesting work but to leave the big question largely unanswered or to end up fudging it. Over a number of years – long enough for the whole commission to have been forgotten by everyone apart from those most closely involved and those providing secretariat services – the panel wrote 24 big volumes of densely written analysis. The executive summary is a book in itself. But at a press conference over night, the chair of the panel,  provided the clear and stunning conclusion in just one sentence:

The United Nation’s International Panel on Free Will and Determinism (UNIPFWD) found that we have no free will and that we are all fully pre-determined creatures.

Still thinking that this can’t be right, that it is sensationalist misreporting or a hoax, you look at more media channels and social media. It’s the same news story everywhere: We have no free will. Everything is pre-determined. It’s trending on social media: #nofreewill #determinism. You go outside, just because you suddenly feel a bit hemmed in as if the walls were closing in on you.

Your neighbour is already out and about. Excitedly he says, “did you hear the news… Amazing… what does it all mean? I’m struggling to get my head around this one…” You head to the corner-shop. The newspapers’ print deadline meant that they missed the story. Their headlines seem inane and meaningless now. The shopkeeper asks you whether you heard about the panel’s conclusion. He claims that he always thought that to be the case anyway.

You buy a few items and go back to your house. Now the question is:

What will you do all day?

This is the first of a series of posts on determinism and free will. The next one is here.

 

Useful Concepts – #7 – Chardi Kala – Sikh Reasons to Be Cheerful

“They alone are called husband and wife, who have one soul in two bodies” says Sikh scripture. And when I got to know the beautiful person who later became my wife and her Punjabi Sikh background, which is different from mine, my mind and my soul were certainly drawn to learn new things from her cultural, spiritual and intellectual background.

Reading Sikh scripture, or reading about Sikhism, occasionally sitting in a Gurdwara, a Sikh temple, and being able to read translations of the teachings of the Gurus that were being read, I gained insights into new concepts and new ways of thinking that enriched mine.

In many ways, I am not the ideal person to write about the things I am going to write about. I haven’t managed (yet) to learn modern Punjabi, let alone the older language in which the teachings of the Sikh Gurus were written. I haven’t been able to read or study much of the history of Indian religion and philosophy which forms the intellectual background to the teachings of the Sikh Gurus. So I write this tentatively, in the hope that if I get things wrong no one will take offence and (at least) someone will correct me.

The useful concept here is called “chardi kala.” These words actually don’t feature, so far as I could see, in the teachings of the Gurus, but they feature in a key prayer, the ardās. They also feature in everyday talk of Sikhs, as in:

“How are you?”

“Oh, I’m in chardi kala!”

Chardi kala can be translated as “relentless cheerfulness, optimism and hope (even in the face of challenges or disaster).” It explains major dramatic historical events, like the willingness of Sikh Gurus to face martyrdom cheerfully rather than be forced to change their faith, to positivity in the face of things that get thrown at ordinary people in the course of a normal life.

Chardi kala is founded in some key philosophical and religious beliefs of the Sikh faith. But my strong belief is that it is a useful concept even for people who aren’t of the Sikh or of any faith. I’ll try to discuss some of the principles that are at the foundation of chardi kala. I’ll also discuss what pointers to a more cheerful life those who don’t have a religious background can derive from these principles.

Everything that happens to us and everything we do is predestined.

Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikh faith, says things like:

“By his written command, pain and pleasure are obtained.”

“We come to receive what is written in our destiny.”

“The mortal does that work, which has been pre-destined from the beginning.”

These are all ways of saying that whatever happens to us is pre-ordained or decided in advance. A key image that is used again and again is that what happens to us is written on our foreheads. That is to say, our fates are so clearly pre-determined that they might as well be written on our face.

The link to chardi kala is that we don’t need to be too judgemental to ourselves about the eventual outcome of our actions and activities. We can neither attribute our success to ourselves, nor blame ourselves for failure. Another quote from Sikh scripture is:

“the sharp tool cuts down the tree but it does not feel anger in its mind. It serves the purpose of the cutter and does not blame him at all.”

To presuppose that everything is predestined, is a controversial point. In the argument between those who believe that we live in a fully predetermined universe as fully predetermined creatures and those who believe that we exercise free will, consensus has not yet been achieved. Neither is there an agreed view on what the consequences for our ethics and state of mind should be, if one or the other were true.

A claim that might be easier for most people to agree on though is this: There are always factors at play that influence what actions we are able or inclined to take, as well as our thoughts and feelings and that we are not aware of. And there are factors outside of our control that control what we are able or unable to do. In the big debate, for example, over whether nature or nurture determine more what becomes of us, the point is often forgotten that both are given to us before we can make conscious decisions for ourselves. The family we grow up in, our earliest care and upbringing, the kind of parenting and early years education we receive is pretty much as far outside of our conscious choice as our genes. And all of these factors shape our actions for life.

In addition, there is increasing evidence and understanding about things going on in our brains or minds that influence our actions without us being aware of them. For example, the large number of thoughts that run through our minds that we aren’t necessarily paying attention to, or the things, we purely do out of habit without ever exercising choice.

Then there are also the many weird and wonderful factors that research has identified, such as the fact that we tend to be kinder (warmer) towards people if we’re holding a warm cup of tea or coffee, or that we negotiate harder if we are in contact with a hard surface, or that people are statistically more likely to live on roads that start with the same letter as their name.

The question then is, what proportion of our actions would we have to think of as in some way influenced by factors outside of our choice to ease up a bit on ourselves? The majority? Or is it enough just to believe that there’s a chance that any of our successes or failures were co-created by a single factor outside of our control? In any case, I believe it’s likely that enough of what we do, think and feel is outside of our control to make it irrational to be down on ourselves about anything that doesn’t work out the way it did. (Neither should we be too proud of anything that turns out well, though there’s no reason we shouldn’t enjoy it.)

Not being in control of our actions (or not being entirely in control), is perhaps a reason not to worry too much about anything that goes wrong, but some people may not find it sufficient reason yet to be cheerful. There are some other factors that may help.

2. Everything is interconnected.

The key statement of Sikhism is hard to translate but here are two translations by renowned experts.

“There is one supreme being, the eternal reality, the creator, without fear and devoid of enmity, immortal, never incarnated, self-existent, known by the grace of the Guru.”

“One, Manifest as Word, True of Name, Creative Being, Without Fear, Without Enmity, Whose Form is Infinite, Unborn, Self Existent, through the grace of the guru.”

“One” or the numeral “1” is the first word in Sikh scripture. This is not just an expression of monotheism, a statement that there is one God. It goes further. God is in everything.

The Sikh Gurus teach that God is “pervading everywhere, totally permeating the water, the land and the sky.” And the gurus mention that, “having created the universe God remains diffused throughout it. In the wind, water and fire he vibrates and resounds.”

In a stunningly poetic extended metaphor, Guru Ram Das says:

“He Himself is the field, and He Himself is the farmer. He Himself grinds the corn. He Himself cooks it, He Himself puts the food in the dishes, and He Himself sits down to eat. He Himself is the water, He Himself gives the tooth-pick and He Himself offers the mouthwash. He Himself calls and seats the congregation, and He Himself bids them goodbye.”

Try to unravel that! It means that the divine being has not just created the universe but is every part of the universe and every process that goes on in the universe. (It creates, processes, consumes, serves, is served, invites, and bids farewell).

What is more, the divine is within us human beings. Guru Arjan Dev writes, “He dwells deep within, inside the heart.” And crucially, Guru Amar Das says: “O mind, give up the love of duality. The Lord dwells within you.” Giving up the love of duality would mean to stop seeing oneself as a different entity from everything else.

That oneness is another foundation for chardi kala. Why should it matter what happens to me, if this perception of myself as a separate entity is a bit of an illusion, or at least an exaggerated sense of the importance my point of view? Why should I not move with flow of the universe perfectly cheerfully. As we’ve seen above, an important statement of the Sikh faith is that the One is “without fear” and “without enmity.” That can be seen as a logical consequence of rejecting dualism. It would take two, for something to fear something, or for something to be inimical to something. The fearlessness and positivity of chardi kala is founded in that principle.

To the secular mind, the claim that “all is one” may sound like the ultimate new age cliché. And I’m aware that the additional claim that the one is God, or that the divine fully permeates the one, will not make it any easier to believe.

But again, there are related less strong assumptions that could take the edge off fear and enmity give rise to the sense of cheerfulness and optimism that is chardi kala. We don’t need to believe that all is one. It may suffice to remind ourselves that we don’t live in isolation. I just want to mention three related thoughts:

  • We are able to let go of our subjective point of view and take on a more objective perspective, sometimes called the point of view of the universe, the view from nowhere or the view from the perspective of eternity. Taking that view, when we feel particularly sorry for ourselves can help relativise whatever it is that causes us to feel sorry for ourselves, or remind us to be grateful for what we have and what is going well in our lives.
  • Feeling connected with other people, just having social contact, has been shown to be a major factor in increasing wellbeing and happiness. Taking altruistic action, doing someone a favour, giving to charity or someone in need, has equally shown to be able to improve happiness.
  • Feeling connected to nature, even if it’s a green space in an inner city improves wellbeing. Spending time in nature has been shown to improve health impacts, e. g. by lowering blood pressure. Hospital patients with a view of plants have been shown to recover faster than those who had no such view.

3. Life as a human being is an opportunity too good to be squandered.

The Sikh Gurus regard the human life as a precious opportunity. This is because they believe that a soul wanders through various incarnations until it is freed from the cycle of re-birth. (Once it is released from having to be embodied in a living creature it is said to have entered nirvana.) A soul can be incarnated (literally “entered into flesh”) in any species. (That shared belief is also the reason why the some of the earlier Western philosophers recommended vegetarianism.) But the human being has the best chance to lead the kind of life that would lead to nirvana. (Though the Gurus are not derogatory about other species. They say: “Even kings and emperors, with mountains of property and oceans of wealth – these are not even equal to an ant, who does not forget God.”

So for example, in Sikh scripture you frequently read things like:

Through 8.4 million incarnations you have wandered, to obtain this rare and precious human life. (Guru Arjan Dev)

he wastes this human body, so difficult to obtain. In his ignorance, he tears up his own roots. (Guru Arjan Dev)

That body, which you believe to be your own, and your beautiful home and spouse none of these is yours to keep. See this, reflect upon it and understand. You have wasted the precious jewel of this human life; you do not know the Way of the Lord of the Universe. (Guru Teg Bahadur)

So, being born as a human being is already proof of great good fortune and a massive opportunity to achieve the release from suffering in various incarnations. As well as making the most of the opportunity (that would be through virtuous conduct and focus on the divine nature), it also is  a reason for cheerfulness and optimism. We could after all reach nirvana after a long series of  incarnations.

Again, I would argue that there is a pointer here to reasons for cheerfulness even for those who do not necessarily buy into the whole background of belief in re-incarnation through a number of species. Without wanting to be disrespectful to other species, it is hard to deny that as human beings we enjoy advanced cognitive functions, abilities to communicate, express ourselves and apply reason to practical and theoretical problems.

These are a unique opportunity to think about the kind of life that makes for a good life. (As Aristotle says in another point that compares being human with being an animal of another species, the good life must be about more than just satisfying our desires, otherwise we’d be no different from cattle eating grass.) They are also unique capabilities with which we can achieve greater happiness, such as cultivating conversations and relationships with other human beings, deepening our understanding of the universe and our place within it or contemplating the beautiful and the sublime (which in turn points us to that which is greater than our own time-bound existence). This life then as a human being is an opportunity to engage in all sorts of valuable activities. Of that opportunity we should make the most. We should also be happy that we have it.