The Genesis of Motivation: Why and How Life Maintains Itself.

December, 1997
by Geoffrey R. Hamilton

Preface

For the purposes of this paper I must begin by stating that clarity is my primary stylistic concern. It is a reaction to countless other philosophical treaties which obscure their faults in confusing and superior sounding phrasings. Although I am as clear as I am capable of being, this paper contains unconventional ideas and it will not be easy to understand. This is because, as is well understood in research into memory, what cannot fit into one's schema cannot be remembered or utilized well in the form of comprehension.

This paper does not concern itself with an ultimate truth about life and the universe as that is never accessible under any criteria. The reason for this is that there is no single context suitable to answering that question -- I will explain in more detail on pages 2 and 10. Truth is a pragmatic term and is first defined as a consistency of accepted premises within both the argument of this paper and within the arguments of its critics. Secondly, if this paper and its critics agree on an issue, than this is also a pragmatic truth -- unless it is inconsistent with the premises. A truth can always be challenged, but unless it contradicts another truth it should stand.

Also, if ethics are valued higher then truth in any circumstance, the result could be an ethic with no existence in truth. Truth, as slippery as it is, must precede ethics in order to address the distinct possibility that ethics are not only relative and arbitrary, but that they don't exist.

Introduction

Where do idiotic ideas come from? How do stupid ideas become smart ideas? How do smart ideas become absurd? These questions seem facile but they are as important as any question that can be asked. To ask why the universe came into being or how life came into being is also to imply the facile questions as well: if you cannot answer those you cannot be certain of an answer to the more respectable questions. I believe the answers I give below can satisfy nearly every question, but as to why the universe exists I have not the faintest idea. Everything that happens has many causes and I believe that within life the most vital ingredient in that causal ripple is a genetic disposition amongst all reproducing life forms to play games. Even now, the genesis of each moment, the cause of each action, is a desire to play a game. As all life, in some way, 'understands' what it is doing, in that I believe it cannot fail to act in accordance with the game gene, how life gets to each moment can be said to have begun with an 'understanding' of the universe.

The universe is infinite. The reason it must be so is that no theory, no fact, no truth can eliminate the problem of non- existence. No matter whether the universe is defined as beginning with "the word of God" or with the "Big Bang" there is always something that gave rise to this beginning. The problem is the cause of the beginning exists prior to that beginning. This prior cause idea is inescapable under any formula which has been devised by humanity. No matter how the narration of the beginning of the universe is conceived, non-existence cannot be made to exist without making it into something tangible and thus violating its defining characteristics. Additionally, any attempt to position an 'existent non-existence' as beyond human reason is an attempt to reason through to an understanding, and so the attempt contradicts its own premises. It is like saying "I always lie"; it is an amusing paradox, but it is not a pragmatic truth.

Infinite structures have two important properties which makes it difficult for some people to justify the contexts which inform their own universes: an infinite universe has no boundaries and has no centre. These two properties seem to be important to humanity in giving a sense that there is such a thing as a natural context to any given topic. To avoid a disquieting lack of a 'natural context', borders and centres of the universe are constantly being created. However, just because a context can make sense of a given subject it doesn't make that context the only context which can achieve that or any sense. It is like the monochromatic picture which allows a viewer to see either a champagne glass or two faces looking at each other, both and neither is correct; and because you can see only through one context at a time, each context becomes the natural one in sequence. The number of contexts which can be applied to the universe is as infinite as the universe, and every context is a natural context - - even contradictory ones. I will discuss contexts in further detail on page 10.

Assuming that life, unlike the rest of the universe, is not in some way infinite in time, then it can be assumed that life was created at some point. All life on earth is constructed from matter and energy. The water and carbon which makes up much of life on earth comes from other areas of the universe (demonstrated last year) and so too may have come to earth the basic structures of life. Irrespective of this possibility, the continuous change of matter and energy into new formations, described by Chaos Theory, and even as long ago as by Epicurus, allows, in an infinite universe, the inevitability of the basic structures of life to form. This is the basic reason for this claim: because time and matter is quantitatively infinite and chaos is infinitely changing the qualitatively finite matter of the universe, then all formations of matter are inevitable, therefore life is inevitable.

Life is inevitable, but no reason for life's existence is available either before or after existence. Life is only caused to exist, without a reason, and it remains so even today. Even while alive the lack of a reason to live is sometimes apparent, that living serves no purpose to the individual (any life form), and this individual can, by extension, see this is true of all life forms. Ask, "Did I, in particular, need to live before I came into existence?" From others' points of view, no, because your contribution was indefinable, unknowable and so had no void set aside to fill. From your own point of view, no, because you did not exist and had no needs. All life functions under the same lack of purpose, but still most individuals go on.

Any life's existence is defined by its ability to move without reference to immediate stimulus -- without simple action- reaction movements: for example, a rock falling off a mountain cliff dents the ground -- action-reaction. This is not a life unless the earth chose to dent itself. Life, then, exists without reason, but it is still self-motivated. The question is, what motivates an entity when it is without recourse to a reason?

As mentioned above, the problem with having any entity self- motivated is that no reason for its specific existence is possible from merely existing in the universe. If an entity needs some direct motivation from a God or from any outside source it can no longer be considered different from a 'rock'. An entity must have an internal method of initiating motivation. Existence has no greater attraction for a life than not existing unless this life's structure can contain within itself a facsimile of a reason. All present forms of life known to human knowledge are capable of self-motivation, from plant to whale, so something within the structure of life is a facsimile of a reason to exist. And no life form, from a god to a fungus can escape the requirement for a facsimile reason to exist.

A facsimile reason to exist could be anything, given that survival for longer than a few seconds is all that is needed to have an entity self-motivated and so technically alive. However, if a being is to survive long enough to allow for the possibility of self-motivated reproduction through cell division cloning, at least, it must be motivated towards activities that improve the ability for reproduction and so eliminate the need for spontaneous life production by 'chaos' for life to exist at all. The difficulty with life maintaining its existence is that it has to possess a structure (from now on called a gene) which creates a motivation that will aide survival long enough for reproduction. This motivation must take into account the chaos in the universe; in other words, it must be flexible enough to change when the universe changes. As a result the genetic motivation must be towards an activity which produces the requirements of survival no matter what state the universe is in at the time.

It is important to note that behavior is shown to be genetically inscribed in many different species. Many things, from strangulating vines to migrating birds and fish, demonstrate genetically encoded behaviors. Humanity is no exception within nature as sexual behavior is from a genetically inscribed disposition. A risk-taking gene was identified last year and controls the level of risk associated with motivated behavior. Incidentally, genetically disposed behavior in no way mitigates the self-motivation of life forms as to the timing and quality of that behavior. Choice is always a factor in life; free choice, however, is not possible, as choice is prohibited by factors like ignorance, body structure, gravity, accident, genetically encoded values, etcetera.... Overall, the possibility that a behavior can be genetically inscribed is clearly demonstrated by many life forms.

An entity's genetic motivation towards acquiring any specific food, defense or means of procuring foods or defenses will not help survival as these specifics will change unpredictably due to the chaos; this is true regardless of the entity's intelligence. A broad genetic disposition toward 'survival' seems a flexible enough possibility, however, the same problem arises as with a specific disposition; an action which will aide survival cannot be accurately known, irrespective of the best genetically engineered intelligence, due to the chaos of the universe. Also, no being is going to survive if it makes its own predation as easy as possible, the reverse is better for survival. This conclusion allows the assumption that all life will attempt to avoid being prayed upon by any means. The prey's (any life form) defenses make acting on a predisposition to survive even more difficult as an action cannot guarantee a life's survival and so it won't be desirable and won't be taken. For example, using a survival gene, a fox glances at a pile of rocks and doesn't see the pheasant due to its camouflage, the fox walks in the direction where food is logically supposed to be because a detour through the rocks is irrelevant to its survival. Any life form with only a survival gene would have this problem. Something must motivate an irrelevant action.

The version of life that will survive into reproduction will be the one that is motivated towards seemingly irrelevant actions. The problem with irrelevant actions is that there is an infinite number of irrelevant actions that can be taken. Survival could not happen if all actions were made equal; eating a rock would be the same as eating the pheasant to a fox under such a disposition. The irrelevant action must be narrowed to those behaviors which increase survival, keeping in mind that any specific dispositions (from now on called values) cannot maintain existence for very long. How this is done, I propose, is by a broad genetic disposition to play games in order to discover the actions which will have value in later games. I use the term game for this genetic disposition because the irrelevant actions (playing towards goals) observed and described in conventionally understood games conform completely to the structures of all motivated actions observed in all reproducing life forms. The use of the term 'game' is neither denigrating nor supportive towards the activity it denotes, it is only intended to accurately describe the behavior.

The game gene, then, creates a method by which life's survival in a chaotic universe is motivated when there is no reason to be motivated, and it makes survival possible when the method of survival is impossible to know. The remainder of this text will be an exposition on the details of the game gene from the individual life forms to the largest groups of life forms.

First, I will explain what life consists of. Life is material, so its behavior and thinking process is material. Individual life forms are separated from all other individuals, but some are not wholly separate, in a way very much like in a symbiotic relationship. However, the interconnection goes further than in symbiosis in that many, but not all individuals, are constructed by other individual life forms. Humans, for example have many individuals which make up the human individual, some of which we call white cells; these are self-motivating and they play their own games. Humans themselves, in groups, display the attributes of individuals as can be seen when the male portion of a large group is decimated by war and some hidden internal compensation mechanism overproduces male babies in order to rebalance the male and female numbers in the group. Individual life forms in general, then, are the base from which self- motivation is possible, but individuals sometimes possess a method by which they are brought together into matrix-individuals while still separated. This is useful for the purposes of group game playing.

All game playing falls in a structure intimately tied to an individual life form. The interaction of individual life forms in group games (page 10) is strictly a secondary manifestation of the primary games of the individuals. To be self-motivating an individual must always play its game without the direct involvement from any other individual life form in making choices. Influence by outside game players is extended, muffled and controlled through the senses of each individual.

A game structure involves an individual life-form which contains a sense of itself. I mean literally a 'sense' as in the 'five senses'; it is what some others prefer to call consciousness and I include some of the unconscious processes in that definition, like dreams and reflexive behavior. This sense of self is the focus of the game playing efforts of the individual. It is the table where the stakes can be placed during the game. This structure is needed to create the 'self' in the self-motivated action, however it is not synonymous with the individual life form, as a sense of self does not control and is not the whole body. Additionally, the sense of self requires thinking which is not synonymous to language, especially human languages. Thinking, whether consciously or unconsciously, is created through the sense of self and is a construction for and through the life-form's behavior genes.

Adjunct to this sense of self are many other senses which feed into the body and occasionally into the sense of self when needed for specific games. All life uses different senses; humanity uses the five commonly understood ones and also the senses for balance, time, body position, internal regulation and possibly others. Each bit of sense data is used by the sense of self when it is relevant to a game.

As an aside, it should be noted that more than one genetic structure can serve the function of a game gene and more then one sense structure can serve the function of a particular sense. There is also the possibility that the senses, or genetic structures, I describe may be made from numerous senses or genes, or from only one kind, it makes no difference to this theory.

All games have these elements: (1- Goals) arbitrary goals selected by the sense of self in relationship with previously existing values, whether genetic or acquired; (2- Rules) Arbitrary rules selected from a limited number of possibilities offered by the individual's values (including ethics), by the physical universe and by the values arriving with acceptable game opponents, living or otherwise; (3- Pre-evaluation) a perception of the challenge or risk in a game which sees the goal with its rules as being uncertain but not impossible to reach. A game is not happening when there is a perception that it is too easy or too hard to play. If the action is too easy it is being done as part of some other game. This level creates the standard by which later evaluation is accomplished; (4- Play) Action within the sense of self, but which frequently relates to the outside world, and which attempts to reach the goal of the game without violating the rules which were found previously acceptable -- cheating in one game is done in conformity with the rules of another game; (5- Emotions) the emotions rate the actions during the game relative to the goals, rules and pre-evaluation. This is the currency and payment system for existence; (6- Evaluation) reason creates values from those emotions; (7- Memory) the values are stored and restored as the individual plays and replays the game in order to to refine the different uses these values may pose in any future game. The cycle begins again with each new game.

Though it is possible to find examples of the prevalence of game playing amongst any observed life form, human activity is the most familiar area to draw examples from. The activities of humanity also offers examples of most game elements at work. Games are possible to observe in every human circumstance, once the context of the game is identified. These are some of the parameters which help identify games: they can be abandoned, games can overlap, fall within each other, be played simultaneously or be suspended indefinitely. It is often difficult to determine how many games are being played and where they begin or end; however any activity can be shown to be part of a game structure, from commuting to work (to pay for a vacation) to repetitive compulsive disorder (to prove the door is locked).

The game gene allows for irrelevant activity to be meaningful. This implies that every behavior, from that of the rapist, to that of the prophet, can be meaningful to anyone who chooses to play. Because observing something is identical to physically playing something, in that both have game structures functioning, then complaining, explaining or arguing over something completely outside any physical connection to the individual can still create as strong a meaning as physical experience can elicit, as is the case with obsessive fans. Movie's, stories and dreams can be as compelling as actual events because they are essentially experiencing them they same way as they do living events -- only, most people activly devalue stories in comparison. All actions fall within game structures whether they take seconds to play or a life time. Evidence that the motivation is towards game playing and not towards any other activity comes from the consistency with which people will chose to play the game rather then attempt to help themselves, to help survive or to accomplish any other motive.

Game playing is the best description of the activity of human life because no other concept is consistently evident from the observations. (a) A person may want to save his life and will hold on to a rock face while others rescue him, then again, he may be on that rock face to commit suicide because he has run out of things to do and he is waiting for the rescuers to come to him so he can take someone with him. Either way he is playing a game, whereas survival is not a consistent motivation. Even survival is an arbitrary goal and, so, it is a game. (b) Yes, a person may want to help themselves when they steal food but they do not know if it will help them a little or hurt them a lot, yet they steal. Whatever is the outcome, it is a game to steal. The same is true of any helpful behavior, the consequences of any helpful act can be potentially harmful, then helpful, then harmful again. So the act itself is neither helpful nor harmful and in the long run no one cares, but it is always a game. (c) Stupid ideas have the same effect. Experiments blow up, wars begin, accidents happen and all kinds of useful brilliant consequences follow. None of these helpful consequences are seen in the stupid idea, and often the stupidity of the idea is well noted, but the activity goes forward anyway. The brilliant idea will often become idiotic the same way. The motivation of all this is the game playing urge.

(d) Observe any emotion which is displayed and it will be directly related to the winning or losing of a game. The rich and poor, the one who possess the most valuable physical attributes and those most undesirable, none of it matters if the game played in the moment is won or lost. (e) The type casting of winners and losers is the most vital activity in social settings. People can ignore anything about someone's personality; as long as these people are perceived as game winners in the individual's eyes, they will be liked. (f) Lovers are unconsciously rating the game playing potential of their mates which in turn tells them who to like and especially who to love. (g) The ghoulish attractions in certain entertainments are dependent on whether they are perceived as offering a game which is neither certain nor impossible to play, as in all games, as long as it has a goal which is acceptable. (h) People will often do extreme things to win a moment of recognition once they know they have lost their main game, that way they can at least win a game. (i) People who act on principle in detriment to their survival are only completing the game which they agreed to play with themselves. To do otherwise would be to lose. (j) Perhaps the strangest manifestation of the need and logic of games is the "emperor's new clothes" idea. Even if a game is acknowledged as being a game, as long as it is played it will be as rewarding as if it had been not noticed to be a game at all. This factor shows that the game playing disposition has the strength to create meaning in the most absurd situations (i.e. the universe) even when an artificiality is perceived within the meaning.

Further instances of the consistency of game playing over other activities is found, for example, (k) when a person gives an account of an event from his life. Each time the account is told the need to maintain the interest of the listener will cause the story to change with each telling and with each person it is told to -- the movie star will get a different version from the girl friend and so on. The account will serve the interest of the game of story telling over the interest of accuracy. (l) Why is it that historians and scientists and others will work their whole lives on ideas even when they know that they can never obtain the goal of truth which they aspire to? A game playing disposition answers that question when no other explanation can. (m) There is the phenomenon, which is commonly observed, when someone drives in a car for many miles and when they arrive at their destination they have no concept of their trip there. The reason people don't remember is because the activity of driving was too certain, too boring. People will only play with uncertain activities as in a game. The driving was done only as part of another game. (n) Many people focus their whole lives towards activities that serve no one and do very little to help their own existence but they are content and thriving, while some others do things which help the whole world survive better, but they commit suicide because they value nothing they do -- the reason for these occasions can only be that the game gene is functioning. The last example though can only be fully explained with an explanation of group game playing.

Before group game playing can be understood, a fuller explanation of why there is no single natural context for any given subject and why all contexts are natural to a subject. As I said above, an infinite universe has no limits and no centre, however, because the sense of self is within every life form, the self is literally the centre of the universe for every individual and unavoidably so. Also this means that one sense of self is wholly unable to perceive any other sense of self. As a result there are as many possible contexts for understanding the universe as there are individuals. Further, every game that is played has its own contexts which overlap each other and the self. So within each individual there are as many contexts as there are games that can be played. The emotionally sorted values reduce the number of contexts to manageable numbers; but while there is a prejudice towards a small number, still, there is no single natural context for any given subject. The result is that the use of a context in a game is dependent on an arbitrary selection process, and just because a context can be useful in a game it doesn't imply that there where not also a large number of other contexts which could work equally well, if not better then the one chosen. Mistakes, also, have often been proven to be helpful when placed in a new context. As a result, the way that contexts are chosen in groups is always through a method which does not need to be concerned about what is best for any given game: a method that determines which context survives based on which context can survive. The method is related to the use of power. And it is power, exercised by convention and by other means, which allows for the existence of language and a trustworthy peace.

Power is exercised by the individual life form against its own standards, against the inorganic universe and against the rest of life. Power within the individual is the use of the opponents' prejudices against the opponent and the use of physical influence during a game. Power cannot be measured except during a game and each game will give a different measurement of relative power. Power is used to win games, not to survive, unless that is the goal of the game, but power effects the survival of the players by allowing relatively more wins than not.

The survival of life through games, and due to power, I call simolution. Simolution is a replacement for the concept of evolution in that progress is only a direction in time and no improvement in power or ethical standards over time is possible. Change is continuous and comes about by the simultaneous competition and cooperation (from here called co-opetition) of any individual with any other individual within the game structures of groups. How power is exercised by the individual in a game can be magnified by this co-opetitive process of group playing. In simolution, co-opetition is the larger game playing context where genetic structures constantly change by reference to the game playing effects, and they also change due to chance mutation. No mutation or effect of game playing will be able to eliminate the game disposition and it must remain predominate; although the occasional non-game playing individual will briefly reappear from time to time it will not survive.

Simolution is the manifestation of game playing between individuals and groups. It is about momentary power within a game; it is what actually determines survival for the individual. So whereas irrelevant activities were important to begin the process of finding value, and games form the structure by which it is possible to motivate survival, it is the larger game of simolution which maintains the survival of life.

Power is required in groups, not only because games are arbitrary and need to be selected by the powerful elements, but also because there are too many similar ones -- co-opetition creates similar approaches to games and conflicts arise. To successfully co-opetate it is better if your enemy understands your status and your ally understands your differences. The only way that can happen is if power is exercised on mass or by individuals over the masses in regards to the most arbitrary elements: language, hierarchy, culture (all life forms have versions of these). Power allows these arbitrary elements to be shared, which helps the co-opetition process, which in turn helps maintain peace and places conflict in a more formal atmosphere. This is not to praise the use of power, as anarchy is equally valid, it is only to say that game playing is easier when power is being exercised to control the most arbitrary elements. This also implies that power exercised over the least arbitrary and most co-opetitive games will be the least helpful to game playing, hence, in the human sphere, the relative economic problems of authoritarian regimes which attempt to control markets. However, if an authoritarian regime decided that environmental damage will eventually destroy those market forces, it could hasten their demise towards the goal of saving their environment. If the most powerful segment of the masses also wanted to play this game -- before the attempt is made -- they too could value the destruction of the economy.

The power of coercion is secondary to that of cooperation and competition. As people have been known to refuse to bow to coercion, and remain in competition with an opponent, what is happening, when it seems that people are being forced to do something, is that they are choosing to cooperate, given how badly they are losing their game. The one who refuses to give in is still playing his game even to death. At times, death is the way that some win their game. The example given earlier, of the man who does great things to help the world but still feel unsatisfied and commits suicide. This can happen from coercion, for example, through peer presure. He gained the impresion that only certain avenues were open to him. He accomplishes them, but he had other values which he was predisposed to play. When the coersion no longer seemed viable and he no longer could play the games he was disposed to play, he chose to die, which was the best way to win another game. The consistent factor is that choice is exercised to either cooperate or compete.

Finally as power determines the acceptance of some values, and all activities are arbitrarily defined -- that all contexts are equal in validity -- this implies that ethical standards are also arbitrary, and this is pragmatically true. Power will determine some ethical limits, but the genetic values and gaming effects of an individual's life will determine the remaining ethical standards, keeping in mind that the sense of self is autonomous from other individuals. This does not mean that ethics does not exist, only that ethical standards are constructed according to their usefulness towards different levels of game playing.

Conclusion

If the genesis of individual life had a precursor it would be the genesis of motivation. A facsimile reason, even for thinking, needs to find its way towards an existence before a thought can be born. Motivation also needs to find its reason when there can be no reason for motivation. Chaotic constructions gave rise to motivation and the infinite universe to the chaos. Whatever gave rise to the infinite universe, no one knows. A random assemblage of matter and energy became a life form motivated to play games from the first moments of that existence. The sense of self works through its games, and the games create the meanings. Life is maintained and the most powerful game players survive and even influence the selection of games amongst groups. Life simolutes, and in the end, there is no end. If the actual genesis of anything could be determined we would know the origins of the infinite, as for the problem of motivation, its genesis must be the game gene.

home