  We seek causes through science, religion, and in everyday life. We get
excited when a big rock causes a big splash, and we get scared when it tumbles
without a cause. But our causal cognition is usually biased. The 'why' is
influenced by the 'who'. It is influenced by the 'self', and by 'others'. We
share rituals, we watch action movies, and we influence each other to believe
in the same causes. Human mind is packed with subjectivity because shared
cognitive biases bring us together. But they also make us vulnerable.
  An artificial mind is deemed to be more objective than the human mind. After
many years of science-fiction fantasies about even-minded androids, they are
now sold as personal or expert assistants, as brand advocates, as policy or
candidate supporters, as network influencers. Artificial agents have been
stunningly successful in disseminating artificial causal beliefs among humans.
As malicious artificial agents continue to manipulate human cognitive biases,
and deceive human communities into ostensive but expansive causal illusions,
the hope for defending us has been vested into developing benevolent artificial
agents, tasked with preventing and mitigating cognitive distortions inflicted
upon us by their malicious cousins. Can the distortions of human causal
cognition be corrected on a more solid foundation of artificial causal
cognition?
  In the present paper, we study a simple model of causal cognition, viewed as
a quest for causal models. We show that, under very mild and hard to avoid
assumptions, there are always self-confirming causal models, which perpetrate
self-deception, and seem to preclude a royal road to objectivity.
