(More writing by Alex Caldon can be found in his book The Quest For Truth: On Finding The Grail, available from www.thequestfortruth.co.uk. For some people it is given away FREE! Happy Questing....)

The path to enlightenment is curious and more often than not is obscured by illusions. But it is an interesting path. Enlightenment does not only come to mystical hermits who have meditated for 20 years in some remote Himalayan cave. It crops up regularly in our everyday lives. It’s as much a part of Western life as it is a part of Eastern spirituality. Let’s take three examples of enlightenment and get an idea of how it works.

The Monty Hall Problem

The person listed in the Guinness Book of World Records Hall of Fame for having the highest IQ is a certain Marilyn vos Savant. Marilyn writes a column in the Sunday newspaper supplement Parade Magazine in the US The column, “Ask Marilyn”, tests the minds of the readers with curious riddles, puzzles and games of skill. In one issue (February 17^th 1991) Marilyn first published the Monty Hall Problem (named for the host of the television show Let’s Make a Deal, from 1963 to 1990). The problem poses the following question:

You are on a game show, and are shown three doors. Behind two doors are goats, and behind one door is a car. You are asked to select a door, and you will win whatever is behind the door of your choice. You select a door, say number 1. The game show host then chooses another door, say number three, and opens it to reveal a goat. The host then offers you the choice to either stick with your first selection, or change to door number two. Is it to your advantage to change doors? (see the first picture on this hub.)

Most people’s intuition tells them that since there are only two doors left, and one hides a goat, and the other hides a car, then it is “clear” that there is a 50/50 chance of getting the car whether the contestant changes or not. But the reality is counter-intuitive. In her column, Marilyn answers: yes, you should switch. The first door has a 1/3 chance of winning the car, but the second has a 2/3 chance of winning the car.

This problem has in the past provoked an adverse reaction in people who were discovering it for the first time. Nevertheless, it is true that the contestant should switch to improve their chances, and we can see this with a little logic. Let’s trace all the possible courses of events which could take place, and do some adding up:

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Contestant selects goat 1 Contestant selects goat 1

Contestant STICKS Contestant SWAPS

Contestant WINS A GOAT Contestant WINS A CAR

Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Contestant selects goat 2 Contestant selects goat 2

Contestant STICKS Contestant SWAPS

Contestant WINS A GOAT Contestant WINS A CAR

Scenario 5 Scenario 6

Contestant selects the car Contestant selects the car

Contestant STICKS Contestant SWAPS

Contestant WINS A CAR Contestant WINS A GOAT

We see from this that:

If the contestant STICKS they win a car 1 time out of 3.

If the contestant SWAPS they win a car 2 times out of 3.

So by swapping, the chance of winning the car increases from 1 in 3 to 2 in 3.

The problem has been analysed again and again since, in many ways, including by computer simulation, and it is a certain fact that the contestant should swap to increase their chances.

But what is most interesting is the reaction the problem generated in the readership of Parade Magazine. Vos Savant estimated that around 10,000 readers wrote in, including many PhD mathematicians, all declaring that her solution was wrong. These are a few of the responses printed in vos Savant’s following column:

"Your logic is in error, and I am sure you will receive many letters on this topic from high school and college students. Perhaps you should keep a few addresses for help with future columns." (Georgia State University)

"May I suggest you obtain and refer to a standard textbook on probability before you try to answer a question of this type again?" (University of Florida)

"You are utterly incorrect about the game show question, and I hope this controversy will call some public attention to the serious national crisis in mathematical education. If you can admit your error you will have contributed constructively toward the solution of a deplorable situation. How many irate mathematicians are needed to get you to change your mind?" (Georgetown University)

"I am in shock that after being corrected by at least three mathematicians, you still do not see your mistake." (Dickinson State University)

"You are the goat!"(Western State University)

"You're wrong, but look on the positive side. If all the Ph.D.'s were wrong, the country would be in serious trouble." (US Army Research Institute)

All of these highly trained minds were fighting against the truth. This is the effect truth often has upon us. We can even feel anger towards the people revealing the truth. They make us appear foolish and un-sexy, and we don’t like that; there is certainly an air of hostility in the responses to vos Savant’s solution. As the respondents are all acclaimed academics, it shows us too that we should not always be taken in by the illusion of status.

The truth of the Monty Hall Problem can not be stopped forever; eventually the truth will correct one’s perception and clarity will result.

“All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident.” Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Next…

The “F” Test

Count the "F's" in the following text, before turning the page to find the answer.

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-

SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-

IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE

EXPERIENCE OF YEARS

There are actually 6 F’s in the text. It may seem incredible, but it’s true. If you counted 3, that’s normal, 4 is above average, and if you counted 6 straight away, then apparently you are a genius. The brain for some reason does not process the OF’s.

The puzzle tells us something about our own inadequacies; it really isn’t that straight forward to see the truth. But the truth was there all the time. There were six F’s when we first looked at the puzzle. That truth existed outside of our perceptions.

Again, it is interesting to note how we felt when we were first told there were six F’s and not three. Personally, I felt quite shocked – “WHAT!!!? NO WAY!!! ” - I think that’s what went through my mind, followed by a feeling of disbelief and the urge to go back and check. But I was wrong to disbelieve, and eventually I saw it.

“To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle.” George Orwell

And finally…

A Mystery Picture

What can you see in the second picture on this hub? A satellite picture of a weather system? Some sea shells? There is something there, so take some time to work it out.

When the picture finally reveals itself, we get a satisfying sense of relief. But it is worth noting that before we see the truth about the picture we may have feelings of frustration - we are almost disbelieving that there is anything there. And like our other illusions, after we have been enlightened, the truth seems so clear to us, that we wonder how we could have been fooled before. In fact, it seems that after we have been enlightened we can never go back. Once we know what the picture is we can never again look at it in confusion.

In each of these three tests, the truth was placed in front of us, but for a while we couldn’t see it. This is the nature of enlightenment – it happens when we get sudden clarity on something which was there all along. And this process of enlightenment can happen in many aspects of life. For example, people gain enlightenment when they suddenly see the real nature of what some call God. We are so often provided with a picture of God as a man on a cloud who listens to our prayers, that God’s true nature can be hidden from us.

Enlightenment can happen in our perceptions of people as either good or bad. Persecution is a real phenomenon, and describes the way in which the bad in people attacks the good in others. Bad people will often describe good people as bad. Bystanders may be taken in by such slander, and the perceptions in the bystanders may become turned upside down – they may be duped into thinking the bad people are good, and the good people are bad. This inverted perception may be very powerful, but eventually enlightenment may come to the bystander. Some extra truth may come to the fore which exposes the true natures of the bad people and the good people. Where once the bystander perceived somebody as bad, they may suddenly realise they are looking at somebody good. As a very extreme example we can look at the persecution of Christ. Whether we believe He was the only son of God, or not, people must have once perceived him as bad for them to have given him such a heinous punishment as crucifixion. In time, the truth of Christ’s loving nature became evident and people’s perceptions became closer to the truth.

In seeking enlightenment, there is everything to gain. If we stick to our old mis-understandings life becomes unnecessarily complicated, and difficult to tackle. We can help enlightenment along a little if we exercise some self discipline. The three examples above show us how our feelings of embarrassment can hold us back from the truth. We can overcome that when we admit that we are fallible; when we surrender to the truth in this way, our minds become receptive to what is there in front of us. It is only when we are receptive to change, that we can learn and grow.

The truth is always there in front of us, every second of every day: it is only in our perceptions where falsehoods may exist.

“Your enlightenment rests on your own shoulders.” The Dalai Lama