Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

I saw Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast in Dymocks, skimmed through a few pages, and concluded that I had stumbled upon quite an interesting topic. So I borrowed the book from the library. It is subtitled "The Evolutionary Origins of Belief", and if you've ever wondered why people believe what they believe, this book attempts to provide some of the answers. Why is belief so important? Because all of our behaviours are influenced by what we believe. Furthermore, the beliefs of people in positions of power dictate how society operates. It is up to these people to ensure that their beliefs are conducive to a well-functioning society. To quote Harry Kroto, "We can't afford to have power concentrated in the hands of people influenced by mystical rather than rational philosophies."

The author, Lewis Wolpert, is a British developmental biologist. He is also one of the UK's foremost science writers. In this book he looks at how beliefs originated, and puts forward a theory that we naturally try to find a causal explanation for things, even when there is insufficient information to do so. Why do we do this? It's all to do with how our brains evolved in relation to our environment. Here's a story to illustrate the point:

Back when man was living the hunter-gatherer life, uncertainty was everywhere. He could be taking a leisurely stroll one minute, then be pounced upon by a sabre-toothed tiger the next. He needed some way to exert greater control over his destiny. One day, he was out hunting near his cave, when suddenly there was a rock slide. He leapt back, but he wasn't fast enough, and one of the rocks landed on his foot. He fell to the ground, howling in pain.

In the branches of a nearby tree, a peacefully dozing sabre-toothed tiger was suddenly jolted awake. Growling angrily, the tiger jumped out of the tree and charged towards the injured caveman. The caveman had to think fast. He couldn't run away. He saw the rocks all around him, remembered the pain they could cause, and instinctively grabbed one in each hand. As the beast swiped its paw at his face, he brought the rocks together and crushed the paw between them. The tiger roared in pain and limped off into the jungle.

After the caveman's fear had subsided, he realised that the rocks he was holding were extremely valuable. If he were ever in such a situation again, he would need those rocks. But first, he would have to make them easier to carry. Tool making was born. The hassle of the hunting process was greatly reduced. Humans had an adaptive advantage and the process of evolution moved forward. More patterns in nature were found - as well as causing pain, two rocks could cause sparks to appear if struck together at the right angle. When these sparks landed on dry twigs, man became owner of a powerful tool with which to control the environment - fire.

Man now had time to ponder in front of a warm fire. This led to questions. He questioned why things happened - what caused the sun to rise each morning, what caused his fellow tribe members to become ill, what happened after death. Using a combination of experience and intuition, man began to devise answers. Causal beliefs were born.

For those who are unfamiliar with the term, a causal belief is the belief that something will happen as a direct result of another thing. For example, I believe that when I strike a match, I will see a flame appear at its tip. Of course, this is a rational causal belief, as there is plenty of evidence to suggest that a flame will indeed appear. However, when the evidence is missing, causal beliefs still arise, and people stubbornly hold on to them, no matter how irrational they may be. Wolpert convincingly argues that there is an evolutionary basis for this behaviour, and after reading this book, I find that I agree with him.

Looking at human history, we can ascertain that many beliefs evolved to help with survival. This is especially evident when we look at the many irrational beliefs people have about the subject of health. In many tribes around the world, illness is still seen as the result of failing to please one of the many omnipresent supernatural beings. In Western society, vitamins are often perceived as providing a defence against a variety of illnesses. However, studies have been done showing that swallowing a sugar pill is often just as effective. This is because the person believes that they are swallowing a vitamin, and has the expectation that they will be cured. This is known as the placebo effect. Strangely enough, the placebo effect also comes into force when a person prays. If the person believes that praying to God can cure an ailment, a positive effect can indeed be achieved. The person believes it will work, so it works.

Frame of mind is also important for those who have a belief in the paranormal. When sceptics observe a psychic, they believe that they will be exposed to some sort of trickery, whereas believers in psychic powers expect a genuine display, and hope to make contact with another world. These expectations do affect the observer's experience. Their later recall of what happened is greatly influenced by their beliefs - the believers recall psychic phenomena even when the demonstration has been unsuccessful.

Societies around the world have developed different ways of thinking and consequently have different beliefs. Wolpert states: "Compared to Europe and the USA, China and other East Asian societies remain committed to the idea of the individual as less important than the society." And further on: "Americans perceive the cause of murder as mental instability, whereas Chinese see it as reflecting society's failure."

Every society around the world has a religious tradition of some sort. We make gods and religious systems for the same reason that we make tools. Religion is a tool for the soul. Wolpert is aware that many people need religion. It gives their lives purpose and meaning, and the comfort of knowing that there is a controlling force. He acknowledges that there is evidence that religious activities reduce psychological stress and promote greater well-being and optimism. He also mentions the suggestion that some have raised that a full apprehension of the human condition would lead to insanity, and that paranormal beliefs can help with this, particularly the belief that we live in some domain larger and more permanent than mere everyday existence.

To me this seems to suggest that everyday existence is not enough for religious people. I can accept this, but not the fact that the concept of a higher power or an afterlife is touted as something that everyone needs to have faith in. Faith should be a personal thing. A person may intuitively feel that there is an entity greater than themself at work in the universe, but trying to explain this to others is futile, because other people cannot experience it.

Although Wolpert examines where belief came from, he refrains from attacking it. He remains very level-headed and unbiased, and simply says that people should look at the evidence for their beliefs rather than accept them without question. Of course, for many people this is easier said than done, since beliefs are formed using different principles and methods than the critical thinking approach inherent to science. Our belief engine prefers quick decisions, is bad with numbers, and sees patterns where there is only randomness. It is too often influenced by authority and it has a liking for mysticism. Perhaps Wolpert refrains from attacking belief because he accepts that causal thinking is a result of human evolution.

Richard Dawkins, on the other hand, revels in pointing out the logical flaws inherent in religious belief, and even goes so far as to claim that churchgoers are morally worse than those who stay away. This is actually quite an interesting point, as there is some truth to it. C.S. Lewis conceded the possibility in his popular theological work, Mere Christianity. The Gospel is generally preached to the weak and poor, such as when missionaries go to Africa to spread the word. Because of who is targeted when spreading the word, troubled souls may well be drawn disproportionately to the Church.

According to Lewis, the appropriate contrast should not, therefore, be between the behaviour of churchgoers and nongoers, but between the behaviour of people before and after they find religion. Dawkins's opinion that churchgoers are morally inferior to the rest of us is obviously logically unsound; one could use the same logic to deduce that medicine is bad because those sitting in a doctor's office are on average sicker than the rest of us. Dawkins also thinks that humanity as a whole would have been better off without religion. Many people who gain fulfilment from their religion would disagree, but in any case, the answer is unknowable. Our history has been shaped by Christian traditions. And the way our brains are wired means that if religion wasn't available, people would find something else to fill the God-shaped hole in their consciousness. Like celebrities. Or football.

Interestingly, Wolpert mentions that tools and causal beliefs may be the basis of the human fascination with ball games. "All involve focusing on how a ball will behave when struck or thrown, and thus involve a basic understanding of the physical forces involved." He asserts that all sports may reflect an innate interest in such processes, especially for those no longer making or using tools. Physical causality is indeed an innate attribute in humans. Wolpert observes that by eighteen months, babies will use a "tool" like a rake to pull a toy towards them that was out of reach. Chimpanzees find this difficult.

He goes on to say: "Babies one year old already point at things, which is something no ape, young or adult, ever does. Babies do this to get a toy before they can talk. It means that they know that what they see, some other person can also see." According to Wolpert, by the age of four, children have a well-developed theory of mind, and recognise that others have an image of the world. They know that beliefs are different from real objects, and know that beliefs determine to a large extent how people behave.

There are interesting anecdotes all throughout the book, and this is one thing I really liked about it. Here is an example: "A test for whether children have a theory of mind, that is, whether they can understand what others are thinking, involves showing them a small tube with a very characteristic pattern that normally contains Smarties: the well-known sweets. A child, when asked what such a tube contains, will say that it contains Smarties. The child is then shown that it does in fact contain pencils and is then asked what their best friend would think was in the tube. Children with a theory of mind will reply that the friend would think it contained Smarties. Autistic children cannot give the correct reply, and will suggest pencils."

There is another interesting story about a tribe which has a belief that fosters cooperation. The Chewung in Malaya distribute food according to their belief in "punen". Punen is misfortune caused by the failure to satisfy an urgent need. To avoid punen, the group ensures that everyone's hunger is satisfied when sharing food.

In chapter seven, Wolpert looks at ways people can create false beliefs, using processes such as confabulation, delusion, and hypnosis. He also mentions schizophrenia and the hallucinatory effects of certain drugs. Especially interesting were the experiments showing that beliefs can be created in a hypnotised person's mind. A person's level of suggestibility and their willingness to accept what an authority figure tells them are the key factors in this being accomplished successfully.

There are a number of neurological illnesses that result in delusional beliefs, one being the Capgras delusion. Wolpert explains: "When the patient sees someone he knows very well, a wife or parent, or child, he claims that the person looks like, for example, his spouse, but she is not really his wife and may be an alien imposter. In other respects the patient may be largely normal. One explanation is that in seeing his wife, he recognises her, but that the normal emotional response is absent and thus it could not be his wife, and so he believes it must be an alien pretending to be her." Pretty strange.

In case you're wondering, the title of the book is a direct quotation from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland:

Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Carroll makes his White Queen proud of believing impossible things - a feature of many passionate believers. In my opinion, irrationality is not a good way to live life. However, as Wolpert states: "Beliefs, once acquired, have a kind of inertia in that there is a preference to alter them as little as possible. There is a tendency to reject evidence or ideas that are inconsistent with current beliefs, particularly if they undermine central beliefs; this is known as the principle of conservatism." As Francis Bacon once said, "Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true."

I find it difficult to believe in anything that I can't know for sure. For example, I can see no evidence for the existence of a soul. Personally, I think the idea of a soul is unnecessary. It certainly doesn't affect our lives here on Earth. I think a plausible explanation is that the idea of a soul came about as a way for people to deal with the fear of death. The body dies, but the soul lives on. Many people would find this comforting.

I have a few criticisms of the book. At times I found it a little unfocused, and there are also a number of poorly constructed sentences. In the chapter on religion, Wolpert admits that his evidence is often weak. Often he prefers to provide more trivia rather than attempt to argue his own perspective. Wolpert classifies himself as an atheist reductionist materialist, and seems to be puzzled by belief, but accepts it nonetheless. As I see it, his main message, which appears on page 22, is this: "The freedom to have beliefs is very important, but it carries with it the obligation to carefully examine the evidence for them."

I'll conclude with a quote from Sam Harris: "The only thing that permits human beings to collaborate with one another in a truly open-ended way is their willingness to have their beliefs modified by new facts."

Dreams and Reality

A couple of nights ago I had an unusual dream. I was in my bedroom in my childhood home, when all of a sudden this praying mantis showed up. It was a large praying mantis, about the size of a dog. I threw a handful of bugs towards it, and it gobbled them up. It then moved nearer to me, and I could see that spikes were growing on its head. I didn't feel scared at all. And that's all I remember.

I only pay attention to my dreams when there's something memorable about them. When I woke up, I remembered the praying mantis, and I wanted to find out what it meant. Apparently, seeing a praying mantis in your dream suggests that you are in a destructive relationship. So I had a think through my relationships and came to the conclusion that the only one that could possibly fit the bill is my relationship with my job.

It just so happens that during my working day before I had the dream, my legs were feeling stiff from lack of movement. I had a strong desire to go for a run just to get the blood flowing. Sitting at my desk in the office for hours on end can't be good for my body. So, was my subconscious telling me that my job will bring destruction of a physical nature, or was it something deeper?

If we're talking job satisfaction, there are certainly aspects of my job that I do not enjoy. Yesterday was particularly unenjoyable. I spent the entire day calling prospects and rattling off the same spiel. Hardly anyone was interested. All in all, it was an empty day. However, last week I felt good after having convinced a prospect to buy. I made a sale. I tooted the horn. My boss recognised my value to the company. I guess you could say that I have a love/hate relationship with my job. Some days it seems challenging, other days it seems like a complete waste of time.

I was reading something the other day about what you need to get out of your job in order to feel passionate about it. You see, passion at work is not just about the product or service you are selling. It depends on two key aspects: whether you are doing something that has meaning for you (which can come from either the product involved or the process) and whether or not you are making progress. If you're able to find yourself a job that meets these criteria, your level of engagement, fulfilment, and ultimately, contribution, will rise exponentially.

Pan's Labyrinth

Recently I went to the movies and saw Pan's Labyrinth. One of the reasons I chose to see this movie was because I read it had been nominated for six Oscars. I also looked at the reviews beforehand and saw that it was universally endorsed by the critics. The synopsis described it as an enchanting, yet dark fairytale. So I was really looking forward to seeing it and was expecting a fantasy tale along the lines of Spirited Away or The Chronicles of Narnia.

Pan's Labyrinth was not at all like those movies. This is not a bad thing, but I feel that it has been marketed in a somewhat misleading fashion. At first I thought it might be a movie that children would go and see, but I quickly changed my mind after a particularly brutal and graphic scene. The movie has a fair amount of violence, and I'm talking violence that is very realistic and unstylised.

The story is set during the Spanish Civil War. It centres around a young girl named Ofelia who has just moved with her pregnant mother to live with her new stepfather. The stepfather is a particularly nasty army commander, and most of the movie's violence happens when he is onscreen. This aspect of the movie contrasts sharply with the mystical world of fauns and fairies that Ofelia frequently visits.

Ofelia learns that she is the human incarnation of an ancient princess, and to return to her rightful spot on the throne, she must complete three tasks before the next full moon. I became excited when this aspect of the story was introduced, and was anticipating a wildly imaginative fantasy adventure. When Ofelia began her first task by entering a hollowed-out old tree and making her way through a dark muddy tunnel, I was reminded of Alice in Wonderland, and I said to myself, "Yeah! This is the stuff!"

However, after Ofelia's completion of the task, we were back to reality and the story returned to its focus on the battle between the Spanish soldiers and the rebels. This side of the story actually receives more attention than the above-mentioned fantastical tale. It has elements of espionage and torture, and is quite intriguing. But I still found myself a little disappointed, because I thought I was getting a story set in a fantasy world. War movies generally don't appeal to me.

Yet this was a memorable movie - the character development is good, and the addition of fairytale-like aspects gave it quite an unusual feel. There's one very creepy scene where Ofelia enters a hall that is home to a hideous creature. The scene had a foreboding atmosphere, similar to what one might expect from a David Lynch movie.

I don't want to give away the ending, suffice to say that the two stories merged in quite a meaningful way. I did want to see more of the fantasy world, but I think this may be because I had been led to believe that the movie was something that it wasn't. The viewer should know beforehand that this is a war drama/suspense film, and that the fantasy elements are secondary. I'll finish off by providing my interpretation of the deeper meaning of the film, which won't make a lot of sense unless you've seen it: Pan's Labyrinth is an exploration of the human need for escapism during difficult times.