Believing

by Michael McGuire

  Academic research has focused on cognition far more than emotion and, until recently, they have been viewed largely as separate brain systems. Studies over the past two decades have altered this view significantly. They have shown that the brain areas responsible for cognition and emotion are connected via integrated neuronal networks and that they often “compete for dominance” in the interpretation of information.18 For example, the amygdala is linked to the prefrontal cortex (which is associated primarily with cognitive activities such as social choice, predicting future events, planning behavior, and controlling emotion), the orbitofrontal cortex (which is associated with sensory integration and decision making), and the anterior cingulate cortex (which is involved in attention, motivation, and error detection).19

  The study of emotion has been complicated further by the presence of competing and often-nonoverlapping explanations of its origins and effects. For example, the James-Lange theory posits that emotions are largely a consequence of bodily change.20 The evolutionary approach stresses that emotion has evolved to serve particular adaptive challenges.21 The neurobiological approach attempts to integrate emotion and features of cognition.22

  Clearly there is much more to learn. Yet already a great deal can be said about the influence of emotion on belief and divides. For example, consider the following paragraphs:

  Emotion has a powerful effect on belief, particularly when there is a high level of emotional arousal, which leads to attention narrowing and an enhanced focus on experience.23 That is, the brain may develop beliefs in which emotion is the principle organizer of information. Beliefs associated with disasters such as 9/11, frightening experiences such as being threatened by an animal, or unexpected pleasurable outcomes such as a surprise party in one’s honor illustrate this effect.

  Emotion influences decision making via visceral reactions, such as disgust, and during the anticipation of fear, anxiety, and uncertainty.24 People put off visiting the dentist and undertaking painful jobs because of the displeasure they anticipate, just as they avoid repeating behaviors that disgust them.

  Beliefs associated with pleasure and reward are favored over those associated with negative emotions often irrespective of evidence: believing that one’s lost child will be found is a more tolerable and pleasurable belief than its alternative.25

  Culture, belief, and emotion interact. Some emotions, such as anger, fear, and sadness, appear to be universal and independent of cultural differences.26 Others are influenced by culture and context, such as responses to events among members of collectivist and individualistic cultures.27

  The upshot of these examples and a host of related findings is that belief and divides may be influenced as much if not more by emotion than by cognition.28

  Do emotions widen or narrow divides? They appear to narrow them when there is a high level of positive emotional arousal, which glues together emotion, experience, and belief—in effect, the physicality of emotion appears to counter doubt. For decision making, both positive and negative emotions close divides—there is literally no divide when one decides not to order one’s least-favorite food for dinner. Culturally influenced emotions may either widen or narrow divides. When an emotion is concordant with shared cultural views, narrowing is likely. Widening is the rule in the absence of concordance.

  NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES

  It may seem surprising that at this moment in time, it is necessary to assert again that without a brain, there is neither belief nor divides. Yet this is the case. Thus it is not unexpected that neuroscience studies have been and continue to be rich sources of findings and insights about how the brain works.

  For example, in studies in which research subjects are asked to think about something they believe or disbelieve, fMRI technology reveals differences in the areas of the brain that are activated. Belief activates the region known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which has an anatomical link with areas responsible for the cognitive aspects of belief, emotion, and reward. The areas activated during disbelief include the limbic system and the anterior insula, brain regions associated with awareness of visceral sensations, such as pain and disgust, and in negative appraisals of sensations dealing with taste and smell.29 Other studies point to the involvement of the temporal lobe in belief-related reasoning.30 Still other studies suggest that the frontal lobes are active and that parietal lobes “power down” (are less activated) during intense prayer, which is a form of belief.31 To believe in a spiritual sense is associated with decreased activity of the right parietal lobe.32 And moral judgment can be altered by disrupting specific brain regions.33 What these examples share in common is that specific areas of the brain are activated during states of belief and disbelief.

  There is also physiologic evidence. The effect of excessive alcohol consumption is perhaps the most familiar example. Elevated brain levels of alcohol lead to physiological change in the brain and body and impairment in detecting performance errors—that is, how one is performing on a test.34 At times, alcohol consumption is associated with the appearance of novel beliefs that later are lost to recall—“Did I really say that?” Fatigue has similar effects. There are drugs such as psilocybin that initiate ­mystical-type experiences that are completely novel to the user and may have substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance.35 Antidepressant drugs sometimes change people’s beliefs about their personal worth. And elevated levels of the hormone oxytocin intensify the belief that others are trustworthy.36

  The preceding examples comprise only a small sampling of findings and insights from the neurosciences. Nonetheless, this much seems clear: the activation of multiple areas of the brain during different facets of belief, when combined with the effects of physiological alteration and environmental information on brain systems, suggests the following are highly likely. Beliefs and divides are products of multiple brain systems. These systems perform specific tasks. Neural networks connect and communicate between systems. Systems are responsive to chemicals that facilitate or constrain their operation. Energy costs to the brain affect the workings of systems.37

  ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS

  One place to start with a discussion of the energy cost of brain work is by asking why we experience “thinking” about information that we can’t explain easily as so strenuous. Familiar experience suggests an answer. It is not easy to organize a large wedding, design a novel software program, devise an intricate strategy in a war effort, or evaluate the relevance of another’s belief when there is incomplete or conflicting evidence that is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Not only is brain energy expended in organizing and making sense of information, but it is also involved in maintaining one’s cognitive focus, dampening the intrusions of external information, and controlling the influence of emotion. These are energy expenditures in addition to the default energy requirements of the brain. Thinking is hard work because it is an add-on cost to these ever-present default costs, which are estimated to range between 60 and 80 percent of the brain’s energy budget.38 This perhaps explains why occupations that require extended periods of thinking, such as managing a multifaceted company, are so stressful. The degree of stress is a proxy for the high amount of energy required by the brain to think. Perhaps, too, energy requirements explain why people often respond with irritation when their deeply held beliefs are challenged: they have to expend energy responding to the challenge. Dismantling or changing beliefs can be costly to the brain and emotionally unpleasant.

  The energy costs associated with serious thinking can be contrasted with those of the wandering brain: without obvious effort, direction, or stress, beliefs, memories, and emotions appear and disappear from awareness.39 This often happens while driving a car along a familiar route or when one is engaged in a familiar activity. The brain seemingly wanders aimlessly, as suggested by the presence of unconnected memories, beliefs, and emotions that flit through awareness. Such moments occur without recognition of much of the passing landscape or a sen
se of time, although obviously there is a part of the brain that is managing the driving.

  While we experience the energy costs of thinking as high, often they can be reduced dramatically by belief. An emotional twinge or an environmental cue may be sufficient to initiate a belief and thereby bypass the energy expenditure of thinking. Beliefs can be quick and automatic, as during moments of intuition. Minimal thought may be involved. They can often override ambiguity and uncertainty as well as preserve energy.

  For example, today’s news might report that Chinese spies have been arrested in Tokyo, there’s a decline in Japan’s stock market, Japan is objecting to the continuing presence of United States armed forces on its mainland, a major Japanese automobile company has declared bankruptcy, the yen has declined in value, and there is evidence of government-based corruption. Efficient as the brain often is in processing information, it can’t easily organize and make sense of much of what it receives, especially if evidence is indirect. A quick and efficient way to manage such information, establish a narrow divide, and reduce energy expenditure is to package such information into a belief, such as “Japan is in a state of turmoil.”

  Why packaging occurs is of interest, of course. One possibility is that there are adaptive advantages associated with decreasing the energy costs of trying to make sense out of ambiguous and uncertain information. Ambiguity and uncertainty are known to be stressful and lead to chemical changes in the brain as well as aversive body states. Reducing their effects may preserve energy for more critical brain tasks.

  SO HOW ARE PHILOSOPHICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO BE JUDGED?

  There is no requirement that philosophers explain much of what people experience in daily life. As with all areas of knowledge, philosophy has its own agendas, unresolved perplexities, and favorite topics. Still a rough assessment regarding its contribution to the understanding of belief and divides is possible. To try and explain beliefs and divides in ways that are consistent with the mind-body assumption of dualism would seem to limit inquiry primarily to what we experience. Historically, this approach has been unproductive largely because the operations—systems—of the brain are hidden, often seemingly far from rational, and usually excluded from explanation. Characterizations of how the brain (or mind) works are primarily descriptive and don’t address the mechanisms responsible for its operations. On the other hand, monism is open to trying to explain how a single system can account for beliefs, divides, awareness, memory, and so forth. To do this, monism will have to address a variety of issues that it has largely avoided, the most important of which deal with awareness and how the brain processes information.

  By training, I’m a psychiatrist who has worked most of his life in the field of neuroscience. Thus it might be expected that it is there that I would have begun my inquiries. Because of my familiarity with the field, I resisted as long as I could. Why? I wanted to find out what others had discovered; their work deserved a hearing. They had addressed many of the same issues with which I was struggling.

  Psychologists provide insights about how information is manipulated and managed. Historians are informative about the uses and durability of beliefs and, often, how they are slow to change even when there is strong contradictory evidence. My venture into evidence and its sources, while revealing, leaves many questions unanswered. Computer experiments confirm, once again, that we impose our beliefs on evidence and configure it in ways that are consistent with our beliefs. A look at religion and science suggests that there are significant overlaps in what is viewed as evidence and how it is interpreted. The findings of philosophers can be interpreted from several perspectives, but one thing is certain: philosophers hold very different views about the relevance of the brain in explaining belief.

  I phoned Greg and told him that a look at neuroscience was next on my agenda.

  It was clear he was uneasy, “You know I’m skeptical about science.”

  “Yes, but go on,” I insisted.

  “It’s for some of the very reasons we’ve discussed. Science is always evolving—its findings change from day to day. The brain has hundreds if not thousands of systems for carrying out its tasks, and billions of neurons are involved in these tasks. And . . . and only a very few of these systems are well understood. There are simply too many unknowns. Isn’t that what you’ve been preaching?” He paused.

  “In a way, but still, go on,” I suggested.

  “It’s like this. You’ll be attempting to answer questions where you are uncertain about the validity of much the evidence, and the evidence is constantly changing. And, of course, often there are different interpretations of evidence even among your colleagues.”

  Clearly irritated, I interrupted: “Are you saying that nothing can be said unless everything is known? If so, that’s a form of intellectual nihilism. Anyway, there’s another view. Science is about solving puzzles. Granted, complex puzzles are not solved all at once, but it doesn’t follow that even partial solutions should be ignored.”

  “Let me think about it,” he replied. “I’ll phone you on Tuesday morning at your home—OK?”

  Tuesday morning, the telephone rang. It was Greg. “I’ve been reconsidering, and I think you’re right. Even with partial information, some things can be said. Otherwise, as you say, nothing would be said. Just one caveat, please: warn your readers that much of what you are saying is speculation.”

  We finished the conversation with a discussion about his newly found girlfriend, Francesca, and my reminder that his change of heart was an example of his changing a belief. He laughed and signed off with “Arrivederci.”

  Greg’s skepticism is not without merit. There are many unknowns. This was and remains the case for the high activity of brain serotonin in dominant male vervet monkeys. And he is right about the complexity of the brain, which, given current knowledge, couldn’t be addressed in complete detail short of perhaps twenty thousand pages (which would be out of date before the pages went to print). Thus, only selected brain systems and operations are addressed. For example, the capacity of different systems to process the same information in parallel and the effects of both development and ageing on these processes will be overlooked.

  Despite Greg’s concerns, I was optimistic. As I turned to the neurosciences, I anticipated that delving into the workings of the brain would lead to new insights about the how and why of belief and the sources of divides. Relevant evidence is available and it invites explanation. Answers to questions might be only moments away.

  WHAT CAN’T BE DONE

  It is an axiom of neuroscience that a detailed understanding of how the brain works cannot be achieved by analyzing states of awareness. A second axiom is that the understanding of the detailed workings of the brain is still very much in its infancy and changes daily in response to new research findings and theories. I agree with both of these axioms.

  Still it is possible to combine our awareness of our beliefs and divides with available evidence documenting the brain’s unperceived systems and consider how these systems and operations might inform what we experience in awareness. Given the axioms above, it follows that any such effort will be speculative. That is the case here.

  AWARENESS

  Two quotations from neurologist Robert Burton’s 2008 book, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You Are Not, provide a con­venient point of departure:

  The message at the heart of this book is that the feelings of knowing, correctness, conviction, and certainty aren’t deliberate conclusions and conscious choices. They are mental sensations that happen to us.1 . . .

  To be effective powerful rewards, some of these sensations such as the feeling of knowing and the feeling of conviction must feel like conscious and deliberate conclusions. As a result, the brain has developed a constellation of mental sensations that feel like thoughts but aren’t.2 [Burton’s italics]

  In effect, what we perceived as beliefs and divides are “mental sensations” that not only seem to exist on their own during
moments of awareness but also seem unrelated to the systems and operations of the brain, which are their source. Further, our perceptions that we are making decisions and that they and beliefs cause behavior are also illusory.

  That said, we encounter an interpretative conundrum: if our perceptions are illusions, speculations based on perceptions will also be illusions. However, if states of awareness are viewed simply as mental sensations and we discard our illusory interpretations, then perhaps our speculations about the brain’s workings may be less illusion influenced.

  A further point. At present, we have no way of reliably measuring beliefs or other contents of awareness. It is this inability that in part makes them so difficult to study. Nonetheless, we do know of beliefs and divides because we are aware of them and they can be described. Awareness then is an obvious place to begin taking a closer look at Burton’s views.

  Awareness is the quality of being aware of something within oneself or of an external object or event.3 The definition squares with what we experience. We are often aware of ourselves as separate from others, parts of our bodies, imaginary things, thoughts, emotions, actions, beliefs, divides, moments of self-control, making decisions, and more—the list is long.4 What brain systems and operations might account for these moments of awareness? Four examples follow.

  1. Belief as a cause of an action. You are driving down a road and a dog unexpectedly darts in front of your car. You apply your foot to the brake, swerve the car to the left, and avoid hitting the dog. Attention and action seemingly flow without effort.5 This is an example of an automatic response, a response in which unperceived brain systems initiate action prior to your awareness that you have acted.6 The temporal sequence of events runs something like this: your brain perceives the dog, it initiates a response, the response is followed by your awareness—your mental sensations—that you perceived the dog and acted to avoid hitting it.7