As noted by Gilbert (1991, 1993), there is a long tradition in philosophy and psychology, originating with Descartes, that assumes that belief formation is a two-step process: First people comprehend a proposition (e.g., “Jason is dishonest”) and then freely decide whether to accept it as true (e.g., whether it fits with other information they know about Jason). Thus, there is no danger to encountering potentially false information because people can always weed out the truth from the fiction, discarding those propositions that do not hold up under scrutiny. Gilbert (1991, 1993) argued persuasively, however, that human belief formation operates much more like a system advocated by Spinoza. According to this view, people initially accept as true every proposition they comprehend and then decide whether to “unbelieve” it or not. Thus, in the example just provided, people assume that Jason is dishonest as soon as they hear this proposition, reversing this opinion if it is inconsistent with the facts.

Under many circumstances, the Cartesian and Spinozan systems end up at the same state of belief (e.g., that Jason is honest because, on reflection, people know that there is no evidence that he is dishonest). Because the second, verification stage requires mental effort, however, there are conditions under which the two systems result in very different states of belief.  If people are tired or otherwise occupied, they may never move beyond the first stage of the process. In the Cartesian system, the person would remain in a state of suspended belief (e.g., “Is Jason dishonest? I will reserve judgment until I have time to analyze the facts”). In the Spinozan system, the person remains in the initial stage of acceptance, believing the initial proposition. Gilbert has provided evidence, in several intriguing experiments, for the Spinozan view: When people’s cognitive capacity is taxed, they have difficulty rejecting false propositions (see Gilbert, 1991, 1993).

Read that last line again: when people’s cognitive capacity is taxed, they have difficulty rejecting false propositions.

This in essence is what happens when we are bombarded with information / mis-information on “news” channels and advertisements, we do not have the time to decide if what we hear is the truth or not, but we are inclined to initially accept it. Works well for politicians, ad-makers and fake-news people.

This also reminds me of Lenin’s quote: “a lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

Should I be reading Spinoza? Jeeves used to read his works! Psychology of the individual and all that.

[M]ost people are libertarian with regards to their own lives and people they like, statist with regards to people they don’t know, and positively fascist about people they dislike, stereotype, or don’t understand.

From Andrew Kling

Today Is the Ultimate Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything

Today is October 10, 2010. 10/10/10. In binary, that’s 42. And 42 is The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. Or at least, that’s what Douglas Adams says.

Many people wonder what Adams exactly meant by 42, the answer given by the supercomputer Deep Thought in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Why did Adams pick that number? Is there a connection to something the world doesn’t know about? Is the CIA and the MI6 involved in all this? Real aliens, perhaps?

On November 3, 1993, he gave an answer on alt.fan.douglas-adams:

“The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought ’42 will do’. I typed it out. End of story.”

Later, talking to BBC Radio 4 Iain Johnstone, he explained that the number was chosen by none other than John Cleese as the punch line for one of his skits. The famed Python thought it was a funny number, and Adams borrowed it for his book, turning it into a recurring integer through all his work.

But that comment wasn’t the end of the mystery. Stephen Fry—a friend of Adams—also jumped into the debate, claiming that the latter explained to him why it was 42. Fry will not reveal the secret, but he says it is “fascinating, extraordinary and, when you think hard about it, completely obvious.”

The phrase “Gnothi Seauton” taken from the entrance to the Temple of Apollo at Delphi means Know Thyself. This along with the term Sophrosyne (Practice Moderation, supposedly at the exit of the temple) are two of the most famous utterings of the Oracle. Gnothi Seauton is also written on the entrance of the Oracle’s room in The Matrix, by the way.

The phrase is meant to warn those who came to consult the oracle that they should look within themselves to understand what the prophecy they were about to hear meant.

These two phrases are crucial to Greek philosophy especially as espoused by Socrates and his followers. For Socrates, the most important knowledge was self-knowledge. He is most famous for the paradoxical statement “I know that I know nothing.” Admitting ones ignorance is the first step towards gaining knowledge.

What we observe depends on who we are. The ignorants focus on the object and the wise realize the wonder that is the subject.

The same message is in the Kenopanishad, which also carries the same message, that Atman governs the senses. Just having the senses does not make a Self. Wisdom is in realizing the power behind sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch.

One may feel that it is the mind that controls the senses. The mind is only a step up from the raw senses. As Sankara comments, the knowledge that is gained from the senses or the mind is based on observation of the nature of objects. We categorize and differentiate in our minds to distinguish between objects. Thus the mind can never know Brahman. Brahman does not possess any of these differentiating characteristics. This also explains why a guru can only point a disciple in the direction of truth and can never teach it. We lack the vocabulary to do so.

The focus that Vedanta puts on the observer (and the realization that the observer affects the objects he observes) is a crucial differentiator between Vedantic and Western philosophies. Additionally Vedanta explicity states that the truth cannot be documented or taught. It has to be realized by oneself. From memory, I recall that the message of the cave parable of Plato was related to this concept. I must revisit it one of these days.

Some stand out: Deva, Dieu, Zeus as god names, although Zoroastrianism regards devas as demonic. Varuna and Ouranus clearly can be seen to be linked. The whole page is worth a read for anyone interested in the history of religion and mythology.

Can the spread of this proto-religion be linked to the migration of early humans across the same geographic areas? It fits well with the commonality of language across the same regions. The separation of each individual from the root must have occurred over long periods of time as languages evolved and tribes became scattered and distant from each other. There must have been some historic war between the Iranian and Indian branches at one time which led to the Asuras being worshipped and Devas demonized in Zoroastrianism.

What was the interaction between this “nature-based” religion and other religions and philosophies of the lands they spread to? How did the Vedic religion interact with the Dravidian proto-religion? In South India, there are many old temples dedicated to gods that find no home in the Vedic pantheon. These gods must have their roots in the old Dravidian gods.

The spread of PIE from Western Europe to India presaged the later expansion of another religion in the same region: the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Indeed, the neck of land between Egypt and Asia probably can tell us a lot about human history as it possibly witnessed the origin of the PIE and the Abrahamic religions.

In the second wave, why did the expansion stop at the sub-continent? Why did Dharmic religions survive the onslaught when so little of the rest of the world did? Did the sub-continent act as the buffer that protected the expansion of Buddhism across Asia and the preservation of Taoism in China? Why did pretty much every other descendant religion just vanish?

It is possible that the evolution of religious / philosophic thought in India is responsible for this. After all, India grew out of the old Vedic religion into Buddhism, Vedanta and other Dharmic religions over two thousand years ago.