Tuesday, December 11, 2007 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

by Sam Harris, Sameer A. Sheth, Mark S. Cohen

Reposted from:
http://www.samharris.org/site/articles/
and
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117858891/HTMLSTART

annals

Sam Harris
Sameer A. Sheth, MD, PhD
Mark S. Cohen, PhD

Objective: The difference between believing and disbelieving a proposition is one of the most potent regulators of human behavior and emotion. When we accept a statement as true, it becomes the basis for further thought and action; rejected as false, it remains a string of words. The purpose of this study was to differentiate belief, disbelief, and uncertainty at the level of the brain.

Methods: We used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the brains of 14 adults while they judged written statements to be "true" (belief), "false" (disbelief), or "undecidable" (uncertainty). To characterize belief, disbelief, and uncertainty in a content-independent manner, we included statements from a wide range of categories: autobiographical, mathematical, geographical, religious, ethical, semantic, and factual.

Results: The states of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty differentially activated distinct regions of the prefrontal and parietal cortices, as well as the basal ganglia.

Interpretation: Belief and disbelief differ from uncertainty in that both provide information that can subsequently inform behavior and emotion. The mechanism underlying this difference appears to involve the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and the caudate. While many areas of higher cognition are likely involved in assessing the truth-value of linguistic propositions, the final acceptance of a statement as "true," or its rejection as "false," seems to rely on more primitive, hedonic processing in the medial prefrontal cortex and the anterior insula. Truth may be beauty, and beauty truth, in more than a metaphorical sense, and false propositions might actually disgust us.

Read the PDF:
http://www.samharris.org/images/uploads/Harris_Sheth_Cohen_AON_2008.pdf

Full Text:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117858891/HTMLSTART

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 53 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #97201 by Prodigy on December 11, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Not bad. Does anyone know if Sam is still going ahead with that free will book he was thinking about writing?

Other Comments by Prodigy

2. Comment #97203 by USA_Limey on December 11, 2007 at 5:47 pm

Very cool.

Now, I would like to gather up every televangelist preacher and run them through that test and see if they really believe the shit they preach.

Wouldn't that be fun?

Other Comments by USA_Limey

3. Comment #97204 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 5:53 pm

Yes very, very cool.

Better yet, let's round up all the presidential candidates and run them through this test to see if they really believe the shit they're trying to sell us...and also how many of them are actually atheists XD

Other Comments by Don_Quix

4. Comment #97206 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 5:55 pm

I'd like to see what happens in a religious brain when Alistair McGrath is piped into the MRI machine and then, say, Dawkins or Hitchens, and then vice versa, what happens in an atheist brain.

And is there a genetic predisposition to accepting religious propositions?

Another experiment: 10 scientists that do believe versus 10 scientists that don't believe - both groups are highly scientifically literate (so that controls for education), but what causes Francis Collins, Polkinghorne, McGrath, et al to believe whereas most scientists do not?

Other Comments by Rtambree

5. Comment #97209 by maton100 on December 11, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Rtambree,

The MRI translates the brain waves of McGrath to find C.S. encoded modules.

Other Comments by maton100

6. Comment #97214 by Will in Aus on December 11, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Well done Sam! First author and everything.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

7. Comment #97216 by anotherclinton on December 11, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Awww. I was hoping I was going to beat Sam to a first author paper in a refereed journal. I bet the reviewers were total sons of bitches given his celebrity.

Other Comments by anotherclinton

8. Comment #97224 by robotaholic on December 11, 2007 at 7:12 pm

oh my Don_Quix- I love seeing Carl Sagan...<3

Is it me, or do you think the Sam Harris Mailing List is kind of strange...-I like Mr. Harris's work, and also am not really irritated when he goes "meditative" and talks about "going into a cave for a year"...

Other Comments by robotaholic

9. Comment #97226 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 7:20 pm

oh my Don_Quix- I love seeing Carl Sagan...<3

I miss him too :~)

I often wonder what his thoughts on the so-called "new atheist movement" would be if he were alive today. He still lives through his writings and speeches, but it's not the same as having him and his incredible insight and intellect (not to mention communication skills) fighting the good fight with us :)

Other Comments by Don_Quix

10. Comment #97229 by Rtambree on December 11, 2007 at 7:28 pm

Carl Sagan was never for the in-your-face shock tactics like Hitchens. I think he would have been more in the reconciliatory EO Wilson, deGrasse Tyson, or Lawrence Krauss mode.

But his soothing voice, charm, supreme eloquence, passion, and breadth of knowledge made him likeable, even by Christians.

He would have been a valuable, potent and persuasive ally.

Other Comments by Rtambree

11. Comment #97231 by John45 on December 11, 2007 at 7:32 pm

They should run Bush and his cronies through this machine, ask them if they really believed Iraq had WMDs, and observe whether their "basal ganglia's" started squirming.

Other Comments by John45

12. Comment #97233 by Lord of the Morning on December 11, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Yay science

Other Comments by Lord of the Morning

13. Comment #97236 by eric.malitz on December 11, 2007 at 7:38 pm

This could be used as a lie detector it sounds like, unfortunately.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

14. Comment #97238 by Bonzai on December 11, 2007 at 7:44 pm

I know this will come across as almost sacrilege. :-)Sagan never did anything for me. I much prefer the intimate, reflective style of the late Heinz Pagels who wrote on the same subjects of physics and astronomy.

Other Comments by Bonzai

15. Comment #97239 by BAEOZ on December 11, 2007 at 7:46 pm

OK, off topic. But robotoholic. What does the <3 thingy stand for? Less than 3?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

16. Comment #97243 by Don_Quix on December 11, 2007 at 7:50 pm

It's an emoticon for "heart" or "love". If you turn your head sideways to the right, it looks vaguely like a heart. You must not have been on the internet long or never used any sort of text messaging program ;) <- that means wink wink

Other Comments by Don_Quix

17. Comment #97245 by BAEOZ on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 pm

Thanks Don_Quix. I've used heaps of emoticons. But that is not event vaguely a heart. Thanks anyway. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

18. Comment #97315 by Zakie Chan on December 11, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Hey Prodigy-

Where did you hear that Harris was writing a book on free will? I am very interested!

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

19. Comment #97319 by RickM on December 11, 2007 at 9:55 pm

Interesting. Now I know why Dinesh D'Souza makes me feel disgust. Really. After he rattles off a line of false statements, one actually feels disgust (one of the primary emotional responses).

Other Comments by RickM

20. Comment #97326 by Dr Benway on December 11, 2007 at 10:13 pm

BAEOZ: What does the <3 thingy stand for?
Don_Quix: It's an emoticon for "heart" or "love".

I thought it was a sideways boner.

Seemed a little curious that robotaholic would "love seeing Carl Sagan" that much. But hey, Sagan does have a nice tan in that pic.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

21. Comment #97365 by Philip1978 on December 12, 2007 at 1:00 am

I thought it was a sideways boner

You have a one tracked mind young lady, I am very proud of you! hehehe!

Truth may be beauty, and beauty truth, in more than a metaphorical sense, and false propositions might actually disgust us

I always knew Keats was right! (Well, apart from that un-weaving the rainbow stuff..guess he was only human!)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

22. Comment #97366 by Styrer- on December 12, 2007 at 1:00 am

All thanks to Sam for continuing with this and for giving us his findings.

Since reading The End of Faith in early 2006, I have been waiting to learn what he has found in the course of his research in this area.

I wonder what others here think about the evident finding that belief and disbelief 'subsequently inform behavior and emotion', and that our prefontal cortex and our anterior insula may by-pass the truth seeking mechanism Sam cites?

This subsequent behavioural finding disturbs me, in that it indicates that I may have to accept that my anti-theism is as evolutionarily valid as theism, whose adherents I view as solipsistic loons.

Is it the case that, while worrying about the eschatological insanity of some of the faithful, I must add to my woes by being required to contemplate my own possible atheistic delusion? Or am I misinterpreting the import of Sam's findings?

Comments, please.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

23. Comment #97376 by Rational Thinking on December 12, 2007 at 1:37 am

This is fascinating. Kudos to Sam et al. I'm intrigued by the differences in reaction time between true, and false or uncertain. A predisposition to accept a proposition as true until proved otherwise? Hmmmm.

Other Comments by Rational Thinking

24. Comment #97377 by phatbat on December 12, 2007 at 1:43 am

I would like to see what happens in de-souzer's brain when he says things like "Science is based on the assumption that the universe is rational" and "God doesn't have to be explained using our universe based reasoning as he is outside the universe." i mean does he really think this stuff is good or just knows it sounds good to the faithful desperately searching for some kind of justification for their shakey beliefs.

Other Comments by phatbat

25. Comment #97387 by stephenray on December 12, 2007 at 2:18 am

Interesting, and wholly supporting the talk presented by one of the speakers at Enlightenment 2.0 who discussed thought experiments in which people were invited to respond to, eg, the thought of eating sterlised cockroaches during a famine (or something like that) and who react viscerally and then rationalise their response, rather than consider the situation and give a considered response. He said he had set up situations where the response was 'I know I'm wrong and I can't justify my decision, but I just can't bring myself to accept the proposition.'

It would be interting to repeat the experiment, carrying out some form of test beforehand to divide the candidates into sceptics and believers and see if the sceptics are any less likely to make judgments in the instinctive rather than higher cognition areas of the brain. And whether that is a cause of or an effect of having a sceptical disposition...

Other Comments by stephenray

26. Comment #97400 by steve99 on December 12, 2007 at 2:59 am

I thought it was a sideways boner.

Naah. It is clearly sideways cleavage.

Other Comments by steve99

27. Comment #97408 by Incredulous on December 12, 2007 at 3:24 am

Truth may be beauty, and beauty truth, in more than a metaphorical sense, and false propositions might actually disgust us.

Possibly explains why I reach for a bucket whenever I am forced to listen to or read something written by faith based reasoners. Luckily, that isn't too often on this site.

#97236 eric.malitz

This could be used as a lie detector it sounds like, unfortunately.

I think this use of current aspects of neuroscience has been proposed, but I think that's a little way off into the future.

In the same way I think it is not possible to brainwash someone - CIA, FBI, MI5, would all be doing so if it could be done, rather than employing primitive and possibly illegal torture techniques - there are many other things to understand in this domain before we can understand categorically a person's individual patterns when he/she lies or when he/she tells the truth.

This stuff is so interesting and shows also that Sam Harris is not woo wooing when he talks about taking a scientific interest in some of the meditative techniques employed by, say, buddhists.

Other Comments by Incredulous

28. Comment #97414 by USA_Limey on December 12, 2007 at 3:40 am

Comment #97236 by eric.malitz was:

Why unfortunately? You got something to hide? ;-)

It may well be the basis for the ultimate lie detector. I think that's a good thing.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

29. Comment #97416 by bamboospitfire on December 12, 2007 at 3:50 am

To USA Limey and Don Quix. I would be concerned by any attempt to discoiver whether preachers and presidential candidates are lying about their beliefs using this method since revealing them as atheists would also reveal them as liars. The believers will draw only one conclusion from that, even though (as we know) correlation does not equate to causation.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

30. Comment #97427 by Jab on December 12, 2007 at 4:23 am

Yay science! And congrats Sam.

Other Comments by Jab

31. Comment #97430 by j.mills on December 12, 2007 at 4:35 am

Hmm. If belief looks like THIS and disbelief looks like THAT, what would my brain look like when confronted by the statement:

"j.mills does not believe his brain looks like THIS."

Other Comments by j.mills

32. Comment #97437 by Luthien on December 12, 2007 at 4:53 am

17. Comment #97245 by BAEOZ on December 11, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Thanks Don_Quix. I've used heaps of emoticons. But that is not event vaguely a heart. Thanks anyway. :)

Actually, it's extremely common in online gaming such a World of Warcraft, and it doesn't look like a heart because it's extremely difficult to put in all the arteries and ventricles using only ASCII characters :-P

Other Comments by Luthien

33. Comment #97446 by Philip1978 on December 12, 2007 at 5:10 am

Naah. It is clearly sideways cleavage.

You have a one tracked mind young man, I am very proud of you! hehehe!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

34. Comment #97477 by sent2null on December 12, 2007 at 6:53 am

<3

sideways cleavage?

That is one active imagination you have there steve. ;)

I see an ice cream cone with two lumps myself *grin*

Other Comments by sent2null

35. Comment #97488 by annabanana on December 12, 2007 at 7:30 am

<3 ahahahaha, you guys make me laugh.

By the way, if you type <3 on facebook it will actually appear as a little black heart.

Anyone remember this one --%--@ ?

Other Comments by annabanana

36. Comment #97576 by Vadjong on December 12, 2007 at 11:35 am

<3

I see the entire history and sense of the universe behind the deeper meaning of this mystimagical symbol, but then again,
I'm just hopeless (some important man told me recently).

Other Comments by Vadjong

37. Comment #97621 by wednesdayguevara on December 12, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Anyone remember this one --%--@ ?

Ahh, a rose for my pretty! ;)

This is what I've been waiting for. More about what makes the brain tick, please, Mr. Harris, and less about what we should call ourselves and who is more charitable than whom.

And YAAAAY science!

Other Comments by wednesdayguevara

38. Comment #97628 by skyhook87 on December 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I feel bad commenting on the ASCII characters and not Sam's paper, but oh well.

This is one of my favorites...

( 8(1) Turn your head to the left; Homer Simpson.

Other Comments by skyhook87

39. Comment #97643 by Fouad Boussetta on December 12, 2007 at 1:18 pm

Congrats Sam! :) :) :)

P.S.: "Studies of olfaction have shown that the left frontal operculum is engaged when subjects are required to make active judgments about the unpleasantness of odors. Thus, regions that have been regularly implicated in the hedonic appraisal of stimuli, often negative, appeared in our study to respond preferentially when subjects rejected written statements as false." I know now why I'm allergic to the monotheistic religions. Their lies literally STINK!

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

40. Comment #97648 by dloubet on December 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm

As regarding <3 being a sideways boner, wouldn't that depend on how many equals signs you have between them?

You know what they say about a guy with a lot of equals signs...

Other Comments by dloubet

41. Comment #97650 by Red Foot Okie on December 12, 2007 at 1:24 pm

You know, sometimes I think that space exploration, nanobots, genetic engineering, and artificial intellegence is all old-hat. The future is the fMRI and the inner workings (and not-quite-workings) of our brains.

If nothing else, it could enable us to tell who is a sociopath/narcissist. And, I guess, an unbeatable lie-detector would be nice.

Of course, it might also reveal some things about ourselves that we would rather not know...

Other Comments by Red Foot Okie

42. Comment #97655 by Corylus on December 12, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Sam, well done to you and your fellow authors.

How about putting some philosophers through this...

Ah, but is it justified belief...

dloubet

You know what they say about a guy with a lot of equals signs...

Big feet??

Other Comments by Corylus

43. Comment #97691 by The Schuermannator on December 12, 2007 at 2:18 pm

I found an even more beautiful rose here: @};--

All this talk about cleavage and boners and I'm gonna need a (_______((__________________() ~ ~ ~

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

44. Comment #97753 by Arcturus on December 12, 2007 at 3:30 pm

So, it seems like you proved that it's always beneficial to question first, it will fire up a larger portion of your brain and get more feedback.

My new motto will be:
"Question and be enriched"

:)

On the other hand the fmri will be the new lie detector. You cannot hide from it.

Other Comments by Arcturus

45. Comment #97877 by LeeLeeOne on December 12, 2007 at 6:48 pm

Is this the first of Sam H's publications towards his doctorate? is this a first taste of his doctorate thesis? if not, does Sam H have a publication date, list of scholarly inquisitors, and argument date for his thesis presentation?

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

46. Comment #98119 by kabaman on December 13, 2007 at 5:22 am

There's lot's of talk here about the use of these results to suggest that the test is suitable for lie detection. But the point of the interpretation hasn't been commented on much. If I read it correctly it really tells us that our ability to sift between fact and fiction is buried in a part of the brain that isn't so hot on analysis and reason.

That would seem to fit with my experience of arguments in which people are convinced that black is white or alternatively that there really was a chap with a beard who invented the world and the sun and all stuff in a week. Actually the reference of "days" would only have had meaning once God had got the earth spinning on its axis and around the sun at the appropriate rate.

Whilst I'm on the subject, it always struck me as very strange as a young boy, that of all the teachings of the bible there didn't appear to be any reference to anything that wasn't observed by the people of the day. You'd think the son of god might have dropped a hint or two about other stuff - he really should have known say, maybe other suns, or planets, or maybe the construction of the earth, or existance of dinosaurs, or the constant speed of light which he set, or anything really that wasn't bleedin' obvious by just looking around.

And then even the stuff that was "explained" in the bible doesn't really stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Stuff like women being made from bits of men - it's not all that believable to be frank.

Other Comments by kabaman

47. Comment #98698 by notsobad on December 14, 2007 at 4:46 am

Now, I would like to gather up every televangelist preacher and run them through that test and see if they really believe the shit they preach.

Wouldn't that be fun?

They tested fMRI as a lie detector in the 9th episode of the current 6th season of Mythbusters named Confederate Steam Gun. Out of 3, 1 passed the test lying (and he didn't pass polygraph).

Other Comments by notsobad

48. Comment #98703 by ghost of numf-el on December 14, 2007 at 5:01 am

Surely it wouldn't be a lie detector as such, but would only indicate whether or not the person believed that they were lying.

Other Comments by ghost of numf-el

49. Comment #98707 by Incredulous on December 14, 2007 at 5:19 am

On the other hand the fmri will be the new lie detector. You cannot hide from it.

Agreed. But we must make sure we get the interpretations correct. The devil is sometimes in the details.

For me, I want to know the answer to the question posed by RD in one of his postings 'Honest Mistake or Willful Mendacity'. Some people have deceived and deluded others deliberately, and I would like to know whether they were just mistaken or out to do harm.

Other Comments by Incredulous

50. Comment #98764 by NormanDoering on December 14, 2007 at 8:28 am

This is a smart move on Sam's part.

If he ever reads this I hope he takes it deeper. I think it's more complicated than believe or disbelieve -- I think there are different ways of believing. I don't think people believe religious statements the same way they believe scientific ones. I think that religious beliefs will show up in areas where the brain processes extreme emotions.

I wrote about it here:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-religious-mindfuck-really-works.html

Other Comments by NormanDoering