Reflections: The Art of Choosing

Life is often a stream of choices. The choices that we make - from the mundane ones to the course-altering ones - lead our journeys through beautiful vistas, shocking unexpected turns, rounding on smooth valleys, carrying us up to dizzying altitudes, dropping us down sudden pitfalls, and pushing us towards dark dead-ends. Choice is celebrated. The freedom, the power, the very right to be able to choose something is a fundamental necessity for most of us. We pity those with little or no choice, vociferously argue about one’s free-will, and regard our lives to be doomed and stripped of dignity without the ability to exercise our power to choose and decide.

What’s more to Choosing? Plenty more. In this excellent book, Dr. Iyengar presents decades of research (of hers and others) exploring Choice from multiple dimensions. How important is choice to our biological survival instincts, how do different people perceive choice from the complicated lens of religion and culture? How is choice connected to one’s identity? Is choice the medium through which we express our individuality? But then how much of our “independent” choices  are really that unique and independent, resisting social mores, economic influences, and factors of subtle manipulation? When do we make rational choices, and when do we make impulsive, intuitive ones? Is one better than the other? All the time? Can there ever be too much choice? Could choice be white noise, a distraction, a detractor, a burden to cloud our decisions? Can a plethora of choices always keep us happy and satisfied? And finally, my personal irony - choice as a tool for punishment - the dilemmas between equally unpleasant choices that paralyze and destroy one’s peace. Is choice really a blessing in such instances? So many questions, so many issues on Choice? Yes, Dr. Iyengar beautifully writes of the many facets of choice, its implications on our everyday life, and the policies that govern our Nations and Markets.

From beginning to end, this is a brilliantly engaging book. Dr. Iyengar is blind. So, she draws stories from her own life to explain the role of Choice. These sections were the most thought-provoking to me. I probably had goosebumps every few minutes. Every sentence is beautiful and insightful. The depth of research that fills the pages is so satisfying to the researcher in me. Since the areas of cognitive decision-making and information processing cross into my purview of study, I was very happy to see all the classic papers cited and talked about. Most of the book can be thought of as an exhaustive literature review in the fields of Choice & Decision-Making. But, it’s Dr. Iyengar’s talent to weave a compelling and readable book that makes all the difference between reading a bunch of journal abstracts and this one. She has a sure flair for telling stories in a simple and relatable manner that doesn’t compromise on the science, but still retains the reader’s fascination and understanding of the big picture of the findings. I loved her writing and narration, and can’t mention enough good things. She has become a mentor and an inspiration for me - as an impressive researcher, a great writer, and a hard-working human-being.

The rest of this long and hideous post is going to contain my reflections (not review) of the chapters of the book. I want to record these basic take-aways from the book for future reference. So, please ignore the following if you want to read this book ( I very highly recommend it) and find it for yourself.

*******************************************************************
Chapter 1: We perceive our ability and opportunity to make choices, only if we believe that we possess a measure of control over our lives. The one who believes that his/her life cannot be controlled or changed, will never exercise their freedom to choose. We berate such individuals, such fatalists. But, through chilling studies that were conducted on rats and dogs, it is found that even rats (the so-called animals with no sophisticated thoughts or beliefs) either choose to survive or choose to not. Even animals choose to survive only if they believe they can change the situation and have been rewarded in the past for trying to change. Animals that have been put in experiments (circumstances) wherein they have never “won” a way out or received any rewards, give up more easily, more frequently. Sound familiar? If someone’s life has been tough through and through, and they have never been able to change their trying circumstances, they are likely to not grab onto the choices that suddenly come their way, even if you teach them to.

This belief on the extent of control we have over our lives is crucial to our well-being, the optimism we learn to acquire, and the resilience to fight for survival. We give up choosing, we see no more choices when we’ve been beaten down every time. 
 
Chapter 2: A favorite chapter. Individualism vs. Collectivism. The individualists want to choose, and choose for themselves, while the collectivists are trained to let others choose for them. Is one way better than the other? Not necessarily, and surely not all the time. But, choice is viewed differently by different cultures. The East’s view of arranged marriages is born from the collectivists’ strategy. The family shall choose for the betterment of both families, the individual’s duty is to obey. The individual in these cultures often doesn’t seem stifled by the lack of (or limited) choice, but conforms to it to in the name of duty and trust. And such behavior and adherence to duty is celebrated and rewarded. Duty vs. self-interest - another favorite topic of mine. But this system works (or used to work) because the communities are dependent on each other much more than in the individualistic society. There is a greater expectation of reciprocity, and hence the necessity to follow certain duties for the betterment of the entire community and oneself.

But what is fascinating is how this view of choice affects children and adults from these different cultures. Interesting studies show that Asian kids are more at ease and more successful when their mothers choose certain things for them, whereas their American counterparts feel infuriated and perform poorly. Understandably.

There is a good discussion of communism vs. capitalism in the context of choice, and how even people from ex-communist countries who waited to be liberated, no longer rejoice and celebrate their freedom to choose. They feel burdened, dissatisfied and unhappy with too many choices and not being able to use them all. Orthodox, religious individuals with rules and constraining choices on how to live, rate themselves as happier and more satisfied than individuals who are not religious and have endless choices. Why?

Freedom to choose also hands us the responsibility to chart our own course. There are no signs, omens, signals, rules, duties, faith, prayers to guide us. If we choose wrongly, we have nothing to fall back on to assuage our confusion and fear.

Sometimes, we like things to be more structured. Sometimes, we like rules. And sometimes, we like fewer choices. A revelation? Perceptions on choice, freedom, and opportunity are more complex and layered than we think.

Chapter 3: Self-expression is accomplished through the choices we make to present ourselves. The clothes we choose to wear, the things we buy, the car we ride, the interior of our homes, the opinions we hold, the decisions we stand by - make a statement, paint a picture, a unique picture (we like to believe) of our identity. Who we are, affect our choices, and our choices consequently affect who we become. There is this obsession to be unique, to be different, to choose differently. And yet, how similar are we! Are we more similar to each other than we want to believe? We don’t want to be too different and unique, for after all, we want to fit-in. But we don’t want to follow the herd either. We keep looking for that elusive balance - the “optimum level of uniqueness” that doesn’t socially isolate us, and yet, just makes us step out a little, just a hint.

We will all buy Iphones and Ipads, but we will still vehemently believe to be unique in our decisions. “The reason why I bought it is different from hers.” “I don’t want to buy this color - everyone seems to carry it.” Ah, the clever trap laid by the marketing geniuses! Nobody is free from social pressures. No identity is perhaps supremely authentic, as much as we strive to believe. We constantly align our perceptions to others’ perceptions of us. I buy something not just for myself and to assert my individuality, but also with the understanding of how it will be perceived. We can’t live with people making wrong assumptions and holding incorrect perceptions of our identity! If so, we have to rush to rectify their perception.

So, choosing is not such a private activity after all. It’s more of a social one.

Chapter 4: Rationally derived choices, and rationally chosen decisions are not always sensible. Sometimes, heuristics and intuition (or informed intuition) is better. Emotions cannot be quantified and fit into rational models of effective decision-making. Intuition isn’t necessarily irrational. We have evolved to be sensitive to many subtle cues around us to help us understand our environment better. It’s because our great-great-great-grand ancestor sprinted to safety when he heard the subtle movements of far-away rustling leaves which intuited to him of an approaching predator, you and me are alive. He didn’t do math or wait for a solid indication, he went with his gut. But his “gut” was informed by very very subtle, nuanced cues that are sometimes hard and impossible to verbalize, understand, or quantify. This book gives astounding examples of intuitive decision-making by doctors, rescue-workers, and even pilots.

But heuristic decision-making can also be terribly flawed and riddled with biases. We might choose to never ever EVER buy a certain brand of TV again, even if statistically speaking, your bad experience was only one of several million positive ones. Math doesn’t come into the picture. Logic flies out the window. Your 1 bad experience will lead you away from it. You will “rationally” choose to do so.

So, how rationally informed are our choices, if we talk of freedom and responsibility of decision-making?

Chapter 5: So, the things that we buy have little to do with personality, authenticity of individuality, and more to do with social forces. What about market forces? I have always wondered about the fashion industry. Are these fashion choices shaped by trend? Who decides the trend? You? The fashion diva? Or the fashion retailer?

This is a chapter that marketing professionals and students would love (and I guess, they would already know). Packaging, color and so many other little tricks influence YOU, the informed, rational, unique, individualistic, responsible customer, in ways that make you seem like a brainwashed automaton.There is illusion of variety, illusion of choice, and illusion of self-expression. You are manipulated to pick up even a boring sweater, because of the clever deviousness of marketing geniuses and fashion retailers who read you and your personality 2 years ahead of time. They expose you to fashion choices that make you believe that you are setting the trend than the other way around. Due to the necessity to fit in, you would rationally choose to follow the trend, albeit in your own slightly specialized way, thanks to the clever little variations you are provided with at the stores!

In psychological terms, you are primed to choose in a certain way, and select certain things. Your subconscious is manipulated and influenced in subtle and harmless ways (after all, fashion doesn’t hurt) to choose the “right” things. This is harmless enough, but what if the consequences to the manipulation are high and significant?

Chapter 6: Too much choice - how can it ever be bad? Well, our brain has its limitations, no matter how distasteful it is for us to hear. We can only process limited amounts of information (5,7,or 9 chunks of information), so hundreds of choices will overwhelm us, confuse us, and contribute to bad decisions more often. And, it leaves us less-satisfied and exhausted all the time. If there are 900 choices of shoes, how long will it take you to find the one you like and that suits you? Especially if you want to try everything and not miss out on something better? If you narrow them down to 100 similar shoes after hours of trials, what next? You tear your hair out, finally pick the blue one and come home and wonder, maybe the green looks better? You return the blue, get the green one and soon wonder about another color, another design that your friend raves about. When will it ever end?! And the more effort you expend to choose the perfect pair, the more you seem tired and the more you seem to compromise on quality, eventually. Or not buy anything at all.

Ok, that’s just about shoes. Thanks to the internet and the review system, we can live with such annoyances of capitalistic excess. But what if you had 250 medical insurance policies, 550 investment options, 700 retirement plans? How will you wade through so many choices when the outcome is pivotal to your life and well-being? And most importantly, why should there be so many choices on something so basic and essential to all of us? And besides, our goals are essentially the same - save as much money as possible, in the end.

I once saw a two year old at a fare, wailing and rolling on the floor, throwing a tantrum of her life. Her mom guessed she was hungry. So, she started, “Honey, would you like a banana?” “Nooooooooooooooo”, shrieked the toddler. “Would you like apple sauce?...Would you like to have some cheese...maybe some yogurt.... how about some grapes... would you like to have some milk? Some pasta? Some french-fries? Mac and Cheese? A smoothie? A pretzel? That ice-cream over there?A nice sandwich? Some gummy bears”....
And all the while, the toddler wailed and screamed and kicked and consistently shrieked, “NOOOOOO!”

I wanted to intervene very badly, and tell the mom - Lady, she is two! She is hungry, she is tired. Just give her something to eat! Put something in front of her, feed her if need be. Stop asking these annoying questions. You are not giving her the exalted freedom to choose, you are just irritating and confusing her. Besides, she is not in a position to choose for herself. It’s okay, you don’t have to read the entire menu to a 2 year old. It’s okay, you’re not depriving her or controlling her by making a simple choice for her as her mother in her hungry state!! And she is two!!

I am not kidding when I say this. Some time later, the same lady and the kid walks into the restroom with me. And the lady goes, “Honey, would you like to go in here, or here, or here.... or here”.... If I hadn’t bit myself, I would have slapped her.

Sometimes, we don’t know where to draw the line. Sometimes too many choices are ridiculous and contribute to very little. Sometimes, it’s okay to rely on others to choose for us. Sometimes, it’s okay to not have an array of choices that confuse and interfere with your ability to make an informed, wise decision. Sometimes, too many choices are unnecessary and just plain white-noise.

Chapter 7: The final and my personal favorite. Remember Sophie’s choice? A sadistic Nazi gives the terrorized Sophie two choices as she enters the concentration camp with her two children - either you choose which child should live and which should die, or both die. Choose. The choice is all yours.

Such choices are cruel punishments. It’s empty and even more meaningless when you hear others say - “Well, you always have a choice!” Such choices break you forever with the burden of carrying the guilt for the rest of your lives.

Patients and adults in the U.S have a say in all their medical procedures. Adults and patients in France, don’t have much of a say. The doctors decide what to do and when to pull the plug. Dr. Iyengar conducted a series of studies with parents from the U.S and France who had lost their newborn babies. If a newborn is critically ill with 50% chance of death, and 50% chance of surviving in a vegetative state for the rest of its life, the decision that confronts the parents is pure torture. Parents in the U.S get to decide whether or not to pull the plug on their child. They make the tough decision. They get to choose, for the medical policies are rightfully amended in this country to always let the patient/loved-ones choose. The French parents don’t get to decide. The doctors decide. Which set of parents is better-off now?

Very interestingly, after a year or two of such a painful experience, it’s been found that the French parents were able to move on and cope with the loss much better than their American counterparts. The American parents fell into depression because they took the brunt of making the painful decision, even if they believed it was the rational one. They were still haunted by the “what if’s”, whereas the French parents could console themselves by saying, “it wasn’t up to me”.... the doctor’s decision absolved them, saved them. The American parents resented the choice, the decision. They blamed the system, and were unhappy and guilt-ridden.

Something to think about. It’s merciful if painful choices are removed from you. Coping with loss is easier than coping with guilt.

**************************************************************************
My fingers ache, so I should stop now. But this was a great book and a great exercise to write down my thoughts on all the chapters. The one thing that I wished Dr. Iyengar talked about a little more is Choice in the light of prediction and astrology. She touches on it in the epilogue, but I would have liked a chapter. But such discussions enter the realm of mysticism and philosophy, and as a scientist she probably didn’t want to speculate, and decided to leave a few mysteries for the reader to figure out.

An excellent book of insights into you and your life as shaped and seen through Choice. It’s a real art to choose. 

 

Squaring the Circle

And the Lord spake unto the the philosopher, "I am the Lord, thy God, and I am all-powerful. There is nothing that you can say that can't be done!" And the philosopher spoke unto the Lord, "Ok, your mightiness. Turn everything that is blue, red and everything that is red, blue." The Lord spake, "Let there be color inversion!" And there was color inversion. The philosopher then spake unto the Lord, "You want to impress me: make a square circle!"The Lord spake, "Let there be square circle", and there was. But the philosopher protesteth, "That's not a square circle! That's a square!" The Lord grew angry, "If I say it's a circle, it's a circle. Watch your impertinence!" But the philosopher insisteth, "I didn't ask you to change the meaning of the word circle so it just means square. I wanted a genuinely square circle. Admit it - that's one thing you cannot do!" The Lord thought a short while, and then decided to answer by unleashing his mighty wrath on the philosopher. (Source: The Pig That Wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini)

What a fitting coincidence to be discussing about square circles right after reading Flatland! Before engaging in any analysis on whether faith and rationality are indeed compatible, I couldn't completely get the logicality of the philosopher's request. It's like asking for dolpho-crocodiles, a creature that doesn't exist, and if it were to be brought into existence then we can envisage such a creature to have both physical and biological characteristics of a dolphin as well as a crocodile (a dolphin face with a crocodile's prickly thick skin, maybe). Or perhaps a unicorn - which is popularly the cross of a horse and a bird. Horses don't fly, that's their property, yet a horso-bird, aka unicorn, will fly due to the added characteristics of a bird. In a similar way, why didn't "God" just produce a new geometric figure called the square circle, which is nothing but the cross of a square as well as a circle? It can have the characteristics of both a square as well a circle, yet not being mutually exclusive.

Something like those above? I mean, fundamentally, I don't understand arguing about logicality of those shapes/attributes that don't even exist! And if such objects were to be invented, who is to set the rules of their properties?! Logicality to a great part is what we define and redefine over the years. A thousand years back it was illogical to expect to talk to people disconnected over thousands of miles. Now it's mere commonsense. And if we attributed God to be omnipotent then even the basic rules of nature can be changed, yet with basic rules of logic still holding true. If the laws of nature are changed such that one can walk on water, then all subsequent laws would change accordingly, leading to a redefinition of our perception. Or else nature wouldn't survive, or would it? Something like Harry Potter's world. Despite conjuring an imaginary fantasy land of wizards and magic (that are highly illogical to us) the rules and constraints of magic were beautifully and logically formed by the author, and with these as the foundation, the story was built logically. One can hardly argue that the story was illogical, when the rules of the land were set.

Anyway, the essence of the above excerpt is to question how rational faith can be. Does faith and belief in God still conform to rationality? I recall a nice paragraph from the book, Sophie's World. If we believe that humans are rational beings, if we believe that we reason and act on our thoughts, and that every creation and act around us is due to the result of some thought process, then there should be a thought emanating from some other mind, whose result is this universe and us. As part of rational thought, we humans need to find meaning and the causal nature of everything. According to us it is irrational to have something without a meaning or cause. Therefore the thought, of the logical belief in the existence of a higher spirit, force, God, sounds rational enough to me. Just because we haven't reached the state of conclusively proving the existence of this higher force through our current framework of intellect, (and limited dimensions in which we live) it doesn't necessarily mean that the faith is irrational. One doesn't have to be irrational to believe in God. Many times faith is just the precursor to a logical deduction. Many great scientists of the world would vouch for that.

Of course the common criticisms of irrationality that stem due to a claim of rational belief in God are - 1) why does God allow all this cruelty when he is all loving, 2) Why are people punished if God is all merciful, and is the cause of all our actions? etc. But don't we still try to logically defend and answer these questions to ourselves? We seek more logical beliefs and explanations to iron out the contradictions and fill in the gaps. It is perhaps at this point that the road forks - one path taken by the rationalists who try to rationally find answers whilst holding onto a faith, and the other path being taken by those who just believe in the existence of an explanation and look no further. Is one path more rational than the other? I'm inclined to think that the rationalists' path is obviously more rational, but it might just be my ignorance. Isn't a rationalist again trying to assuage his questions with more speculations, more beliefs, however logical they are contrived to be?

In the end, faith that exists without any reason or rationality as we presently define, seems to remain just a belief, whereas faith that is complemented with some sense of reason and the need to find rational explanations holds more promise to transform from mere faith to pure knowledge. In that regards, faith and rationality can be made compatible by our own sense of reason.

When Rationality Demands...

Sophia had always prided herself on her rationality. She would never take a decision that didn't conform to rationality and reason. Some motivations are of course not driven by reason - love, taste, character etc. But Sophia's argument was, not being rational didn't always imply irrationality. While it is neither rational nor irrational to prefer potatoes over tomatoes, it becomes irrational when a person who loves potatoes buys a pound of tomatoes, when circumstances don't dictate the purchase of one over the other. However, Sophia is faced with a dilemma now. A very intelligent friend of hers is trying to persuade her that it would be perfectly rational to set off a bomb which would kill millions of innocent people, without any foreseeable benefits that might arise due to the massacre. Sophia is sure that her friend's logic is skewed. But using her rationality she can't seem to place her finger on it. And the argument suggests that she needs to set off the bomb immediately, so time to think is hardly an option. Sophia is plagued with doubt, for she has always been against intuitions and hunches and only favored rational analysis. However if she follows reason in this case, she seems to feel that she would do a terrible wrong by killing people. Should she knowingly follow the less rational path, or trust reason over feeling and detonate the bomb? (Source: The Pig that Wants to be Eaten, Julian Baggini)


What's up with these successive discussions involving bombs and massacre?! My blog is going to be soon blocked if this trend keeps continuing. First off, I really am not convinced with this excerpt. I don't know how an argument could be rationally solid if it involved -1) committing a gross crime of massacring thousands, and 2) have NO benefits from committing such a crime. I really cannot think of an analogous scenario. Rational analysis always consists of costs, benefits and risks triangle as part of decision making. If benefits are zero, and the costs SO high, I cannot fathom what sort of a rational decision-making strategy it would fall under. What could the "rational" motivations for such a crime be?


The reason why I'm so convinced that there has to be a flaw in the argument is not entirely due to the fact that there are no benefits. It is mainly due to the fact that the outcome of such rational thought is evil and morally wrong, and I've been conditioned to believe that objective truth/decisions arising out of reason will only lead to good, not evil. And that is my little prejudice, for I have failed to remind myself of two aspects -
1) good, evil, right and wrong are perceptions. Hitler had his perceptions of "benefits" when he waged the war and tortured the Jews. From his view, his decisions could conform to rationality and reason due to his assumptions, inputs and perceptions. However my immediate objection would be that his "reason" was flawed and doesn't objectively correspond to universally accepted norms/"truths". Yet, I also am aware that there are no books on universal "truths"; everything starts getting subjective.
2) reason without feeling, need not always lead to morally acceptable "good" decisions. Imagine a ship were being run by a machine with no human intervention. Due to a storm the ship is flung off course and there's very less fuel to navigate the ship. The machine has alerted rescue operators. In the meanwhile the machine takes an inventory of the rations available on board and decides that they have just enough to sustain the 50 member crew for 22 hours. Now the machine spots a man hanging onto a skimpy piece of plank, shouting for help, a little further away on the waves. The rational calculation spits out the result that spending fuel and rations on rescuing this man will put the other members of the ship at high risk of surviving. Hence the machine rationally decides not to rescue the man (saving one versus millions, again). Well, the decision still is "rational" if feelings , emotions and moral conditioning were isolated.

I'm reminded of a statement I read long back - "A psychopath's decisions maybe socially unacceptable and irrational, yet inside his mind, the decisions and acts were very much acceptable; they were psychologically rational, yet socially unacceptable, due to the presence of only "reason" and no feeling." So where am I going with all this? Is calling Sophia's friend/Hitler a psychopath my conclusion?


I understand that although the massacre doesn't seem to hold any benefits to me or Sophia, in the eyes of someone (at least the perpetrator) there should be some "benefits," for even a psychopath is assured of the benefit of satisfying his aberration. If Sophie herself cannot see any such benefit that can rationally convince her, she can comfortably bank on rationality to not carry forward with the act. But if she can perceive benefits, she most certainly needs to involve both her heart and mind to settle into a middle ground before "cold-hearted" logic dictates a move; and this decision is not as simple as buying potatoes or tomatoes, it involves thousands of innocent lives. The gravity of the situation begs to involve feeling along with reason. The previous post on exercising torture to save millions is one of the trillions of cases in the real world that debates on whether or not to involve the heart in such decisions.

Human beings have evolved to develop more emotions, empathy, and compassion to their species and to others. Otherwise we would still belong to the barbaric tradition of killing people with a disease that has no cure, in order to save ourselves. At such a stage in evolution it is a sign of barbarism if the heart is not given a chance to be voiced out, during such decision making.

Now onto the mention of intuition. What is intuition? In this excerpt, intuition is totally isolated from rationality and is tainted with a "soft" color of gut-feeling. Is intuition really so cut off from rational thought? A book that I recently read paints a very different and surprising picture - can you imagine doctors in ER and firefighters in emergency rescue operations acting on their intuitions to save lives? And yet that's how experts make decisions! How does an expert cook? Is it their conscious cognitive effort that goes behind how much of what to put, when and how to judge if the food is done. How do they react when they have the faintest smell of a cake burning? Ask them for rational analysis and tips and you would get nothing, except a few hints on sensory perception. Such knowledge/skill is quite tacit and it's hard to verbalize our actions through rational means. The author and many other researchers claim that intuition is nothing but our ability to perceive very subtle cues in the environment to inform our decision making, which in the end almost appears automatic and intuitive. Even those like Einstein and Feynman have claimed that their discoveries were a result of their intuitive imagination that was further explained through mathematical equations. But not all of us are geniuses to have the clarity to rationally verbalize all of our intuitive feelings. Feynman hence urges engineers to develop intuition and not always rely on analytical calculations.

But the word intuition is ascribed to many terms - ESP, sixth sense, clairvoyance and other concepts that go against the notion of free will, and that opens a huge can of other pestering questions that have no definitive answers. But the scientific definition of intuition at least attempts to bridge the gap between perceptual sensory cues (feelings) and reason. So at the end of this boring ramble, I insist that Sophia needs to use both her feelings and reason to make the decision. In this case, if her feelings overwhelm the cold-hearted logic of massacring thousands , especially when she foresees little to no benefit, it is justified to bank on feelings alone, for relying on feelings to make a decision is not necessarily irrational.

The Evil Demon

The basic question posed in this chapter is taken from Descartes's, "Meditations". When I saw the source, I was as happy as a child that I was aware of this discussion and what Descartes had to say about it :).


Descartes tried to explain the working of the human mind, and to understand what goes inside our mind. The first question he poses is - how self-evident is everything around us? Is it true that the grass is green as seen by you and me? Or am I just led to believe that we both see the grass to be green, yet what I call green is actually seen as red by you? Can we believe everything that we perceive in the world to be the truth, or is there some "evil demon", or God who has programmed us to view, act and behave the way we do. Are we living in a dream? To a hypnotized person who has been "programmed" or "instructed" a certain way, two plus two is five and that is the truth to him. If hypnosis is possible, are we all then "hypnotized" by such an evil demon? Can we really trust what we see and believe as facts, to be the truth?


"Matrix" series is what springs to my mind. When I started reading a few paragraphs by Descartes describing and reasoning about this, my head started to ache. According to me, one of the reasons why Philosophy is probably taken to be such a dense and hard to reach science is the way the philosopher communicates. The paragraphs are riddled with dense and complicated sentences, and almost all views are expressed in such a seemingly convoluted and lofty style. I will try my best to not sound so.


So here is what I have thought - As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have sometimes felt like I am a third person looking at a movie of this character (me) and experiencing what she goes through, just like how one would get engrossed in a movie or a novel and start associating themselves with the character. I really cannot fathom what will happen when my consciousness ceases to exist, or when my character exits the stage. I may be living in a movie, dream or be hypnotized. But in whatever state I am in, people around me seem to share the same belief on many aspects of this world, making me be harmonious with my assumed-reality. I may be led to believe so, and I may never know. Using Fodor's principle; my mental model of the world is nothing but rules and representations of my beliefs of how the world is, as perceived by me. In which case, there is probably no absolute truth, which is why I see everyone of us trying to solve the mystery and have our own interpretations based on our beliefs and perceptions of the world.


So is there anything that can be trusted as being true without a doubt? To this Descartes says, our ability to doubt and reason, is probably the only thing that is self-evident without doubt. And I agree. I don't know if the grass is indeed green or if the sun does rise in the east, but I do know I am questioning their truth and validity... and hence I'm certain of my ability to constantly doubt and reason. I am also certain that IF I am programmed by certain rules to view the world in a certain way by the demon, THEN my belief, representations, and actions hold good and are true. If I am led to believe that I cannot walk on water, then me trying to not walk on water is a true logical consequence and is hence Truth to me. If I have been programmed that 2+2 =5, and I believe that the answer to 2*2 must then be 5 as well, then given the belief system, my ability to reason is the only thing true here, although both answers may be False. How good my ability to reason is, and whether it helps me reach the right conclusions every time, given the premise... I don't know.