Wisdom (E04)

The last hypothesis standing

“When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” —Sherlock Holmes

This is Essay Four (E04) of a series investigating a cure for the authoritarian disease now infecting our body politic.

If it is not obvious to us how to eradicate the disease, then we have yet to identify its root cause. Until the cause is identified, the best we can do is treat its symptoms. As promised in E03 (Science), E04 identifies the cause. See also E01 (Foundation), and E02 (Libet).

E02 tells Benjamin Libet’s story. A neurologist uses a simple experiment to discover a natural phenomenon revealing how little science knows about the relationship between the conscious and unconscious minds. A half century later, a limited consensus has emerged. There is a scientifically valid and virtually unchallenged agreement that the conscious mind thinks it is an active participant when it is a passive observer.

Beyond that limited consensus, a review of the literature reveals that support within the scientific community is divided between three conflicting hypotheses, which is to say that there is mutually exclusive support for three conclusions. In other words, either one is correct and the other two are wrong, or they are all wrong.

The “automata” hypothesis is the least plausible of the three. It suggests that unconscious intent is to inform a physical act, and that behavioral responses are exclusively informed and triggered by unconscious intent while the passively observing conscious mind is invariably given the false impression that it is an active participant. It implies that humans are conscious automata, which is to say that the purpose of the most highly evolved area of the human brain is to fool itself into the mistaken belief that it does something useful.

The “veto” hypothesis is less implausible. It also suggests that unconscious intent is to inform a physical act, but it then suggests that the conscious mind can “veto” unconscious intent. Thus, when the experimental subject’s hand movement occurs, the conscious mind chose not to veto unconscious intent. Conversely, when the movement does not occur, it is because the conscious mind vetoed unconscious intent. The “veto” function explains how a response can be informed by conscious intent.

However, “less implausible” is not a synonym for plausible. One unaddressed issue veto raised is a conflict with another scientific consensus, which is that the unconscious mind is fast and reflexive because its simple task involves matching patterns whereas the conscious mind is slow and deliberative because its complicated task involves making decisions.

When your conscious mind decides, it reasons. Specifically, it follows a process involving the use of a set of decision criteria to evaluate the available options. It then uses that evaluation to select the best option. When Libet proposed the veto hypothesis, he implausibly implied that the slow part of the brain’s complicated task is faster than the fast part of the brain’s simple task.

If I accept the veto hypothesis, then I’m accepting the idea that my conscious mind can evaluate and choose between the “veto” and “don’t veto” options in the time it takes for a major league fastball to travel half the distance between the pitcher’s mound and home plate. It is an understatement for me to say that I’m not convinced. I’m almost certain my conscious mind can’t do that.

Admittedly, “almost certain” is not certain, which leads to the other unaddressed issue. A future technology will prove that the veto function does or does not exist, except the technology’s concept does not yet exist.

Of the three, the “null” hypothesis is the most plausible. It suggests that the Libet phenomenon cannot be explained. It is possible that a frequently observed, easily described, ancient, and natural phenomenon defies explanation, but there is another possibility. All too often, our obstacle to understanding is our culture’s unspoken paradigms, aka a collective set of unconscious cognitive assumptions.

“It happens like this always. When dictatorships fall, people look back and they say, ‘Well, how didn’t we see that at the time? This is so obvious.’” —Vladimir Kara-Murza

All too often, an unconscious cognitive assumption distorts an interpretation of one’s observations. In fact, it happens so often that it tends to give the impression that it is part of human nature. It is not. It is learned and developed through an unhelpful practice that ends when the practice of science begins. Specifically, a conclusion-distorting paradigm is subjected to skepticism and easily refuted. Then the paradigm shifts.

The “wisdom” hypothesis suggests that behavioral responses are exclusively informed and triggered by unconscious intent while the passively observing conscious mind is invariably given the false impression that it is an active participant. Its other suggestion is that conscious deliberation is a behavioral response.

In other words, unconscious intent is sometimes informing and triggering a physical act, and it is otherwise informing and triggering conscious deliberation. Wisdom suggests that the conscious mind’s reflexive perception is that unconscious intent is logical.

It may seem difficult to understand the wisdom hypothesis, but it happens like this always. When we understand how an unspoken paradigm distorts how we interpret our observations, we look back and say, “Well, how didn’t we see that at the time? This is so obvious.”

Wisdom explains many otherwise unexplained human behavior patterns. For example, it explains why ordinary people, who are courteous and decent in everyday life, can act callously, inhumanly, and without any limitations of conscience. It also explains the origin of our species and that we inherit the better angels of our nature from our earliest post-origin ancestors. These are just two of many ways to test the premise of this newsletter, which is that hypothesis testing necessarily involves a conversation.

When we respond to what we see, our mind gives us the impression that we made a logical decision and then we responded. The wisdom theory respectfully disagrees.

We are not born knowing how to walk, or talk, or distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy sources. That is the topic for next week’s essay now being composed. For now, suffice it to say that we are born knowing how to learn all three.

The root cause of the authoritarian disease is our culture’s unspoken paradigms. They are the obstacle between misunderstanding and understanding the Libet phenomenon. The same obstacle leads people to misunderstand who they are as individuals and who we are as members of our species.

Understanding Libet’s experiment is understanding the brain’s most basic operating system. It helps you understand who you are as an individual, and because we all have the same basic operating system, it helps us understand each other, and what the phrase “being human” means. Conversely, a misunderstanding of the operating system will distort how one interprets their observations.

The authoritarian disease is not a biological virus, nor is it a manifestation of human nature. It is instead a bad idea that goes viral. The way to kill the virus is with a vaccine that goes by many names. For now, suffice it to say that one of its names is the science knowledge standard. See E03.

The way the vaccine works is simple. Practicing science and behaving like an authoritarian are mutually exclusive. An individual literally cannot practice science and behave like an authoritarian at the same time. So, our future depends on what we choose to practice.