What Causes the Human Brain to Believe in Fictional Phenomena?

[nnope]

What is it in the human brain that causes a person to believe completely something that is fictional such as astral projection or that theyve talked to God so to speak. How can said person believe fully that they have experienced such a thing whilst knowing it is impossible. Basically I am asking why does the brain, at times, accept a myth so willingly when it knows what is real and what isn't? Could this be an effect of conditioning?

 

[jim mcnamara]

This is psychology and is discussed at length in a nifty book 'Godel, Escher, Bach, the eternal golden braid' - D Hofstader if I got it right. He talked about mental templates and type 1 and type 2 error in evolution.
This is also the discussed as the so-called god gene, in E O Wilson 'Social Conquest of Earth'.

In a nutshell we see things that are not there, we impose images based on partial transitory input. Humans who did that avoided predators more effectively in the long term. There are other threads with more detailed answers, do a search on PF on the term 'tiger chow' which is the story I used in class to teach the concept.

Unfortunately we do not handle evolutionary psychology here on PF. If you google the terms I gave you you will get an answer.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Re-opened after some moderation. Let's keep this thread on track as closely as we can. Thanks.

 

[rootone]

My guess is that the equivalent of software for our brains, has evolved on the basis of minimizing risk.
On balance It works out better for survival to percieve imaginary predators. than it does to discount phenomena as being uninteresting.

 

[jim mcnamara]

@rootone - false positives and false negatives (type I && II error) are the basis of this hypothesis. So your guess is correct. But please don't guess, find a reference even if it is wikipedia.

We see things like faces and animals in clouds. Example: You are walking "home" 30000 years ago and you kind of, sort of, think you see a sabertooth tiger behind a bush ahead on your current path. You are taking the shortest way home currently. So you have two choices.
1. you dismiss the idea and go straight home - if you get eaten you cannot pass on your genes very well - possible false negative
2. you take the long way home - you stand a lesser chance of being eaten, and no chance of being attacked by whatever may or may not be behind the bush. In any case you are more likely to pass on your genes. -- possible false positive, 'no harm, no foul' as sports fans like to say. It just takes longer to get home.

Assuming there is a genetic basis for brain structure and function which of 1 & 2 above contributes more to offspring? Answer: #2. This is the basis of Hoststader's templates regarding faces and animals in clouds, Dawkin's God gene, and E O Wilson's approach to why we are tribal ( things like why altruism and group allegiance is a choice, beliefs in something are real even if nobody has ever seen that something.), based on genetics.

 

[nnope]

@rootone - false positives and false negatives (type I && II error) are the basis of this hypothesis. So your guess is correct. But please don't guess, find a reference even if it is wikipedia.

We see things like faces and animals in clouds. Example: You are walking "home" 30000 years ago and you kind of, sort of, think you see a sabertooth tiger behind a bush ahead on your current path. You are taking the shortest way home currently. So you have two choices.
1. you dismiss the idea and go straight home - if you get eaten you cannot pass on your genes very well - possible false negative
2. you take the long way home - you stand a lesser chance of being eaten, and no chance of being attacked by whatever may or may not be behind the bush. In any case you are more likely to pass on your genes. -- possible false positive, 'no harm, no foul' as sports fans like to say. It just takes longer to get home.

Assuming there is a genetic basis for brain structure and function which of 1 & 2 above contributes more to offspring? Answer: #2. This is the basis of Hoststader's templates regarding faces and animals in clouds, Dawkin's God gene, and E O Wilson's approach to why we are tribal ( things like why altruism and group allegiance is a choice, beliefs in something are real even if nobody has ever seen that something.), based on genetics.

That makes perfect sense! Sorry for posting such a sensitive thread, I was scrolling through Facebook, as one would do, and came a cross a post based on mysticism. The contents of the post (unnecessary to know at this point) just had me asking, why is it that people are so eager to delve into beliefs that defy science and logic. I am not trying to discriminte any certain faith nor do I intend to entertain ideas that are not based on science but I wanted to understand the underlying psycology or neuroscience governing such behaviour.

Despite your explanation I still fail to see how, for example, belief in magic (people who will claim with certainity that they have seen magic take place) would provide an evolutionary advantage.

If this post goes wild just close it off or delete it.

Thanks.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Despite your explanation I still fail to see how, for example, belief in magic (people who will claim with certainity that they have seen magic take place) would provide an evolutionary advantage.

It's not about any specific belief, it's about the underlying mechanism.
The mechanism is not targetted, so it triggers for any situation similar to those for which it confers evolutionary advantage.

Compare this to e.g. pain. Pain makes organisms avoid harmful things in their environment, which on average let's them live longer and have more offspring. So evolution favours it.
But there is no evolutionary advantage in feeling pain when you're being tortured, eaten alive, have a tumour in your brain, or have your tooth drilled into at the dentist's. As far as evolution is concerned, it's just a side effect.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Despite your explanation I still fail to see how, for example, belief in magic (people who will claim with certainity that they have seen magic take place) would provide an evolutionary advantage.

This is the point where religion and other belief sets kick into the discussion. And always causes problems in discussions. Like the poster above, who is knowledgeable in many areas, took a 'guess'. You will see where off the wall content on PF is removed. We do this because there are lots of places where you can expound any point of view. PF is one a few places on the internet where we try to stay in a domain that is distinctly different. Documented science.

We established I think:
Our mind is built to accept things we cannot actually see, or that we construct from very partial information. A consequence of that is a belief in processes we cannot see directly. Magic is one. Shamanism is another, so is the placebo effect.

So:
If you cannot see the entire "magical" process, you fill in the blanks. Wrongly. It is a false positive. You get feedback from the people around you who falsely see magic, and from the magician who lies to you. To make a buck. Do not confuse this with the 'willing suspension of disbelief' we need to invoke to enjoy yet another Star Wars movie. I can go to a magic show and have fun, too. Or whack monsters and bad guys in a computer game in a pretend world.

More detailed examples:
The magical illusion you see, although it defies physical logic, has as the simplest explanation we can concoct without being told what really goes on, a special process we do not understand. We fill in the blanks. And if the magician says the process is called magic, we buy it. Like earthquakes are the anger of a demi-god who lives underground. Or Poseidon creates tidal waves. When everyone you know believes the same something, it is often completely real for you. When someone tries to dissuade you of that something, it often fails. Like political debates about things like climate. Because the dissuader cannot penetrate the already created mindset. Especially if the explanation involves any academic subject which most people do not understand that well.

It follows that if everyone at a magic show is duped by a magician the group belief effect kicks in for you, too. Especially if you do not know alternate real world explanations.

Neil de Grasse Tyson has developed a way of presenting science without having to introduce concepts first. He uses everyday experiences, like haircuts and football. This is a consequence of the same issue. You cannot explain Physics to folks who do not understand science using science terms of reference. Because affiliations do not accept parts of scientific explanations or explanations like that are completely foreign to that person and his group. The explanation is doomed from the get-go.

I had to learn this one on my own, teaching Human Biology to ESL students at a Nursing college for native Navajo speakers. Learned enough cultural parameters to come up with what listeners would deem as everyday stuff. Worked really well. It boils down to the tribal allegiance and affiliation with social groups per E O Wilson. Pick your tribe, and you automatically preclude some explanations and also get a free preset worldview all worked out for you. In some cases not a lot of thinking required. Alternatively, thinking may get you in bad trouble.

You really should get a copy of 'The Social Conquest of Earth' from the library or Kindle or such like.
It does not answer everything but it is very explanatory for a lot of things we live around every day.

 

[nnope]

You really should get a copy of 'The Social Conquest of Earth' from the library or Kindle or such like.
It does not answer everything but it is very explanatory for a lot of things we live around every day.

Im actually going to get it, thanks for the suggestion. I geuss understanding this stuff will help with how we percieve, interact and commincate with people. Again thanks for the concise responses on a sensitive topic and I think you have answered my questions. If you like close this thread before unwanted posts start poping up.

 

[Tom.G]

You might find this book interesting. A few of the phrases he uses may be a bit off-putting, but there is much to aid in understanding some apparent inconsistencies in human thought/personsalities. "The Authoritarian Specter", Bob Altmeyer, Havard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996.

http://patrick-fournier.com/d/cours4d-6607.pdf