The Believing Brain and C's clues...

[Divide by Zero]

I've been slowly reading The Believing Brain by Michael Shermer after seeing him in a show on superstition. I understand he is not infallible. A lot of times he bungles up things, like Vaccines, conspiracies and such. He has a good grasp of the basic fundamentals of psychology though and we can see through varied examples on how non objective things can seem objective to people/animals.

Anyway, the primer for why this book grabbed my attention:

I want to find out how superstition as a human trait of pattern searching can be positive if we are aware of it. After all, the subconscious and emotional brain can do things that our conscious brain will confirm after the fact, like the believing lies article/thread explains. I have this feeling that this is why the crystals are a good thing, this energy is a positive superstition if we were to try to explain it on scientific materialist terms. After all, half the battle is within, as we saw with the placebo and nocebo effects explained on Health and Wellness show which are quite shocking!

By that extension, a negative or unaware belief system, even subconscious seems like a self imposed limitation or hell. Perhaps this is what the STS system wants us to stay in through repeated trauma? If we are stuck dreaming of something that we want to happen but the subconscious knows it to not be true, that is worse than just accepting the idea that this is how it is and will always be. I think that's maybe why the C's say anticipation restricts. So how to leave an open belief system that is not linked to this STS "computer server"?

First, a few clues from the C's on belief and it's importance with this reality. Perhaps this is a part of tuning into a specific FRV, or as in the last quote even the idea of a physical future or an afterlife with physical features can seem to anchor us to something?

Session 31 December 1994
Q: (M) Will I be abducted again?
A: Yes.
Q: (M) When?
A: It depends on belief center.
Q: (L) I think it might depend on how much knowledge you acquire as to whether you will be abducted again or under what circumstances.
A: Grandfather let you in on secrets of life.

Session 12 August 1995
Q: (L) Is there any benefit to be obtained through the use of mantras?
A: Especially when the mind says there is. Remember, most all power necessary for altering reality and physicality is contained within the belief center of the mind. This is something you will understand more closely when you reach 4th density reality where physicality is no longer a prison, but is instead, your home, for you to alter as you please. In your current state, you have the misinterpretation of believing that reality is finite and therein lies your difficulty with finite physical existence. We are surprised that you are still not able to completely grasp this concept.
Q: (L) Well, I think I have a good grasp of this concept, but I am asking questions to obtain answers for others to comprehend.
A: That is not being completely honest.
Q: (L) Close enough. Is it true that recitation of mantras can effect spirit release or exorcism?
A: If you please.

A: Could you please explain what an internal operating system is?
Q: (L) I guess it is the subconscious mind.
A: It is?
Q: (L) Maybe.
A: My, my.
Q: (T) The subconscious mind has no idea of time. (J) Time is an artificial constraint... (L) For example: a person can have a belief about prosperity in their conscious mind and can talk about it and say affirmations and all kinds of positive things for themselves, and yet, for some reason that individual continually lives on the edge of poverty because something keeps happening that they keep screwing up to keep themselves at the level of poverty. And, when you start digging around in their subconscious mind you find out that somewhere there is the belief in poverty or there is a past life connection where they feel they need or deserve to be poor, so, their internal operating system takes precedence over their conscious beliefs and thoughts. That is what I am talking about here.
A: Yes, but what is your point.
Q: (L) The point is that you may say that you would like to get rid of time and you may understand it conceptually, but something internal keeps you tied to it. How do you get rid of that internal connection?
A: Something internal keeps you tied to it?
Q: (J) Like circadian rhythms, it’s physical.
A: We feel you are missing the point.
Q: (L) Well, maybe I am.
A: You see, we speak to all of you when we say this. It's now time for you, as individuals, to try to move away, as much as possible, not to force yourselves, of course, but to try and move away at your own pace as much as possible, from the constraints of third density. You have all learned lessons to the level where you are more than ready to begin to prepare for fourth density. Third density involves a level of physicality and restriction and restraint and all of the things that go along with those, that you no longer need. So, therefore, even though we understand that at times it may feel comfortable to cling to this, there is time for you, and there is that word again, it is time for you to consider moving ahead and get ready for fourth density and not to be concerned with such things as time or how to free yourself from the illusion of time. That really is not important. That's like the third grade student delving into mathematics and stopping everything to go back and contemplate the ABC's and why it isn't CBA or BAC. There really is no point. It is what it is. They are what they are.

 

[Divide by Zero]

So far I've found one really amazing section in the book which seems to point out a difference that sounds similar to what we deal with, the authoritarian followers.

Patternicities do not occur randomly but are instead related to the context and environment of the organism, to what extent it believes that it is in control of its environment. Psychologists call this locus of control. People who rate high on internal locus of control tend to believe that they make things happen and that they are in control of their circumstances, whereas people who score high on external locus of control tend to think that circumstances are beyond their control and that things just happen to them.23 The thinking here is that having a high internal locus of control leads you to be more confident in your personal judgment, more skeptical of outside authorities and sources of information, and have a lower tendency to conform to external influences. In fact, people who consider themselves “skeptics” about the paranormal and supernatural tend to score high in internal locus of control, whereas self-reported “believers” in ESP, spiritualism, reincarnation, and mystical experiences in general tend to rate high in external locus of control.

Locus of control is also mediated by levels of certainty or uncertainty in physical and social environments. Bronislaw Malinowski’s famous studies of superstitions among the Trobriand Islanders in the South Pacific demonstrated that as the level of uncertainty in the environment increases so, too, does the level of superstitious behavior. Malinowski noted this in particular among the Trobriand fishermen—the farther out to sea they sailed the more uncertain the conditions grew, along with the uncertainty of success at a catch. Their levels of superstitious rituals rose with their levels of uncertainty. “We find magic wherever the elements of chance and accident, and the emotional play between hope and fear have a wide and extensive range,” Malinowski explained. “We do not find magic wherever the pursuit is certain, reliable, and well under the control of rational methods and technological processes. Further, we find magic where the element of danger is conspicuous.

Shermer is a bit too materialist here and you see his slant. But he did say a few things that reminded me of the problem of belief.
The internal/external locus seems a bit black or white too. With objectivity we can tell when we can do something and when we cannot. I don't know if he intended it this way as a dividing line. But it does seem that authoritarian followers fit more into an external locus of control.

The environment is mediated by levels of certainty or uncertainty. Wow, so pretty much trauma and the bad conditions around the world could very well be designed to keep us in an external locus of control, and there dependent on the ever corrupt political, societal and economic systems!

The fine line of balance seems to be with the other sciences, such as ESP and so on that he lists. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."- Arthur C Clarke. So, if we keep in mind that there is some sort of order to these things that we are not directly always able to see, we can approach it without tilting more to the external locus of control!

I don't doubt that things happen. I just feel that if we think of information theory and probability, the window fallers/ghosts/STS/Aliens possibility loses it's "magic" and becomes less intimidating! I'm reminded of the theory that ghosts seem to have repetitive actions as they were repeating a slice of time. Perhaps our own minds are able to tune into these frequencies "in time" and see this. It also explains the difference in number of abductions between Laura and the rest of the group. She didn't settle for the "this is just cause how it is" mentality that most people apply to things they don't know. Her curiosity and internal locus of control made her "fight" for herself. Maybe that is a big part of FRV and why STS can't just zap our brains and make us zombies like the rest of society?

It also reminds me of the times when the C's didn't give the answer to a question. This would shift the locus of control from OUR exploration and curiosity, OUR minds/souls, onto theirs as an external. Could this be the true free will that we are learning to grow?

 

[Archaea]

Where is the dividing line between objectivity and subjectivity? If reality reflects our beliefs in an objective way, and two people believe two different things on one subject and believe the same thing on another subject are they partly in the same reality and partly in different realities?

I guess an example of this would be the story in the Wave where the guy got hypnotized and couldn't see the third guy in the room. Does this just mean there's something going on in the hypnotized brain which prevents perception of the third man, or are they in partly separate realities?

This also begs the question: what is truth. If two people are in separate realities is the truth, even if only on a physical level, different for the two people? Furthermore if one part of the brain believes one thing and another part believes another thing, can a person be split between two realities? And could this cause the person to disintegrate, like what the C's say?

How important is it that, say you and I, be completely in the same reality? In fact it's possible to argue that you and I are in completely different realities communicating through the Internet, which if we were in separate realities would literally be a trans-dimensional network. However, at this stage, I think for us it would be the truth within that's important and not so much the truth without, although I'm interested in counter arguments to this.

Would an internal locus of control itself be the result of belief? The principles of operant conditioning could be used to teach people that they have no control of their lives, but if reality is 'built' from belief they'd be right if they believed this and they really would have no control of their lives. However, if they didn't believe this they'd be right and they would have control of their lives. So what's the truth?

And the last question is: How would we test these question against reality? If we could test reality splits and mergers through modifying beliefs and hypnotism or something, how could we be sure reality's being modified if we don't change our own beliefs? I.e. would it be possible to change beliefs and not change reality, due to the belief that reality doesn't change if you change your beliefs?

 

[Divide by Zero]

I would think that there's shades of objectivity based on our "senses" which includes our brain. When I think beliefs, deep down it's some kind of operating system that we don't know much about- we just throw data in and our brain maps it out for our consciousness.

Sometimes our consciousness will invent narratives to confirm contradictory data, like with lies or the split brain experiments. It's a feedback loop, and probably why getting the correct knowledge and discernment is so important and what the C's have been teaching us. Maybe it builds up the corpus callosum which connects the left and right brain, in order to have this error correcting (mentioned in Laura's believing lies thread), which can get us closer to "absolute" objectivity- whatever that may be.

Our brains consist of many independent neural networks that at any given moment are working away at various problems in daily living. And yet we do not feel like we’re a bundle of networks. We feel like a single mind in one brain. The neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga thinks that we have a neural network that coordinates all the other neural networks and weaves them together into a whole. He calls this the left-hemisphere interpreter, the brain’s storyteller that puts together countless inputs into a meaningful narrative story. Gazzaniga discovered this network while studying split-brain patients whose hemispheres have been separated to stop the spread of epileptic seizures. In one experiment, Gazzaniga presented the word walk to only the right hemisphere of a split-brain patient, who promptly got up and started walking. When asked why, his left-hemisphere interpreter made up a story to explain this behavior: “I wanted to go get a Coke.”

Hmm, internal locus of control be the result of belief. It does make sense, when the "belief center" is in sync with reality and our PFC conscious mind, we do a feedback loop there to reinforce the seeking of truth, whether it be what we are doing now (mindfulness) or in the external world (current events and social things).

I would think that reality splits and mergers are kind of a catch-22. If reality split or merged, it would change things without us knowing- if it involves some sort of aspect of time. Maybe the only "SOLID" thing that we have is our will power, this drive to keep fighting for objectivity. I can see it by contrasting with the majority who buy into lies and it seems like there is no problem for them. They just keep getting sucked down into the changes, meanwhile we struggle for the search for truth. So maybe the main belief is that "The Truth is Out There", as Agent Mulder would say?

 

[Joe]

Locus of control is also mediated by levels of certainty or uncertainty in physical and social environments. Bronislaw Malinowski’s famous studies of superstitions among the Trobriand Islanders in the South Pacific demonstrated that as the level of uncertainty in the environment increases so, too, does the level of superstitious behavior. Malinowski noted this in particular among the Trobriand fishermen—the farther out to sea they sailed the more uncertain the conditions grew, along with the uncertainty of success at a catch. Their levels of superstitious rituals rose with their levels of uncertainty. “We find magic wherever the elements of chance and accident, and the emotional play between hope and fear have a wide and extensive range,” Malinowski explained. “We do not find magic wherever the pursuit is certain, reliable, and well under the control of rational methods and technological processes. Further, we find magic where the element of danger is conspicuous.

Very interesting DBZ. One thing that stuck out for me is the idea that, as the level of uncertainty in the environment increases, so does the level of superstitious behavior.

It makes me think of the current state of the world and the increasing levels of insecurity among many people and our global society in general. Terrorism, destructive weather patterns, food shortages, economic difficulties, all of these and more seem to make for the right conditions for a real spike in generalized uncertainty. If that means that many people are also ripe for superstitious behavior, you can imagine how, when things really go kaflooey, people would have no problem reverting to 'primitive' belief systems where the ruling elite are blamed for provoking the wrath of god or the gods, or for meteorite fragments or comets to be seen as evidence of the same.

As far as belief systems go, it seems that humans cannot ditch belief completely, so we may as well accept it as an intrinsic function of the human mind. But the question then arises: 'which belief do we go with and on what, if any, basis is that belief founded?'

The reason we can't divest ourselves of belief is that there are many things that we don't and apparently can't, at this level, know, although there are plenty of evidence-based 'teasers'. We can explore reality in a evidence-based way only so far, then we are forced to speculate about where that evidence leads and of what it is suggestive, while having no 'hard' evidence to confirm it as objectively real or true.

So it seems to me that the best approach given these conditions it to collect as much objective evidence about reality, including human history, current events and human beings and how they 'work', and with all that evidence in hand, make a reasonable assumption about what it all points to of what 'more' there might be beyond what we can generally or habitually perceive. That assumption would form the 'belief' part. Following that process, and with the right collection of people and minds involved in it, we might approach something that could be called "objective belief".

 

[Divide by Zero]

Interesting connection between the dynastic cycle and the superstitions.

On one of the sessions threads I wondered about "chicken or the egg first" regarding comets and the corruption that happens before they arrive.
We have a steady cycle, set in physics/mathematics that says comets X years and subcycles of that. (7200/3600/1800 years iirc)
So, how is society bringing the comets if it's a preset interval?
Maybe the electrical/magnetic activity of the comets as per the electric universe theory brings about this madness or very well starts the rapid growth of the psychopath genes, which ends up being wiped out by the comets that started it. It makes sense from past experiments on magnetic/electrical field changes inducing changes in the brain and body/2nd brain. This probably explains why people go crazier and crazier as you guys report on sott.


Yeah, we can't ditch belief. It's a part of being able to be intuitive, to put a picture together where we are missing pieces. It helped humanity survive by outsmarting the rest.

When I think of belief vs 'objective belief' I'm reminded of what Don Juan said about the past seers. They could see infinity but were not prepared for it. What mattered was to deal with petty tyrants, which we can essentially label life as it is now in this ever connected world. Seeing those horrors might help us steer the ship through "infinity" or as I "believe" so far is probability. The seers without discipline didn't learn to choose so they got the smorgasbord of possibilities (infinite universes?).

Maybe they were dreaming up and vice versa in this feedback loop as explained in a past session:
Session 3 February 1996

A: First of all, confusion abounds here due to incorrect interpretations of the last subject discussed. Dimensions are not densities!!!! Dimensions are strictly the result of the universal consciousness as manifested in the imagination sector of thought. Density means level of development as measured in terms of closeness to union with The One... Cycle. So, obviously, the "chupacabras" is a manifestation of human consciousness, and, human beings are a manifestation of the Chupacabras consciousness. Get it? Now, a shocker for you: You would not exist if someone didn't "dream you up."

Q: (L) Who dreamed me up?

A: Not important just yet. You literally are the "figments" of someone's imagination, and nothing more!!!

Q: (L) You mean God dreams and brings us into existence?

A: Remember, "God" is really all existence in creation, in other words, all consciousness. This is because all existence in creation is consciousness, and vice versa.

I just think quantum theory there... the observer changes the result as if the observer was the observed?
So without discipline, we would be those possible horrible things or give life to it?

 

[pete02]

Interesting connection between the dynastic cycle and the superstitions.

On one of the sessions threads I wondered about "chicken or the egg first" regarding comets and the corruption that happens before they arrive.
We have a steady cycle, set in physics/mathematics that says comets X years and subcycles of that. (7200/3600/1800 years iirc)
So, how is society bringing the comets if it's a preset interval?
Maybe the electrical/magnetic activity of the comets as per the electric universe theory brings about this madness or very well starts the rapid growth of the psychopath genes, which ends up being wiped out by the comets that started it. It makes sense from past experiments on magnetic/electrical field changes inducing changes in the brain and body/2nd brain. This probably explains why people go crazier and crazier as you guys report on sott.

I have always wondered this myself and I like the electrical/magnetic activity theory too. I suppose it could work being that we're so easily affected by such things. Interesting topic DBZ, thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Nienna]

On one of the sessions threads I wondered about "chicken or the egg first" regarding comets and the corruption that happens before they arrive.
We have a steady cycle, set in physics/mathematics that says comets X years and subcycles of that. (7200/3600/1800 years iirc)
So, how is society bringing the comets if it's a preset interval?

Could it be that even though there is a cycle to the comets, the population's consciousness/unconsciousness/beliefs/awareness, etc. determines how many comets come our way? The more decadent, the more wackos, the more believing in lies the more comets change course for a direct hit?

 

[beetlemaniac]

On one of the sessions threads I wondered about "chicken or the egg first" regarding comets and the corruption that happens before they arrive.
We have a steady cycle, set in physics/mathematics that says comets X years and subcycles of that. (7200/3600/1800 years iirc)
So, how is society bringing the comets if it's a preset interval?

Could it be that even though there is a cycle to the comets, the population's consciousness/unconsciousness/beliefs/awareness, etc. determines how many comets come our way? The more decadent, the more wackos, the more believing in lies the more comets change course for a direct hit?

Yes, the signal that the population of earth is sending out as a whole could be like an attractor for the comets. The disharmony is an invitation for the situation on earth to be balanced by celestial means. Imagine if the planet was a more harmonious one, and consciousness aligned with objective reality was the way of the time and where interference by 4D was not able to take root for some reason or other. There'd be less of a need to clean house, thus human consciousness became aligned with the purposes of evolution? I guess this is something we have already contemplated many times over. The link between the consciousness of human beings (2nd density beings seem to be mostly reacting to their environment, as they seem to have less free will), and the electrical, magnetic and gravitational forces may still need to be clarified further. More questions!

 

[Divide by Zero]

Nienna, so you are saying that if society wasn't so crazy the cycle will come and go with less destruction?

Interesting idea, since the chance of a hit is based on probability. We're in a cosmic bowling alley and who knows if things were better we would have a gutter ball, missing us in the process. When I think of consciousness changing reality, I think of influencing probability. The group can change much more than a single person who wishes to bend a spoon with their mind. Plus it is a much lower probability that the spoon can bend on it's own, compared to the probabilities of the swarms of comets hitting us.

It connects with the book The 5th Option by Bryant Shiller, where he says that information seems to regulate life (carrier of information) to the point where it will not allow life to damage it by too much technology/space travel etc.

 

[Nienna]

Nienna, so you are saying that if society wasn't so crazy the cycle will come and go with less destruction?

Yes, that's my hypothesis at the moment. :) In Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection, Pierre wrote, "As noted above, our ancestors believed deeply in the connection between human behavior and natural catastrophes. If humans behaved well, Nature would remain calm, but if humans behaved badly, this would trigger the wrath of the 'gods' and Nature would react fiercely." and goes on to give examples of how these things did occur. He goes into it much further, of course.

 

[Cyre2067]

Nienna, so you are saying that if society wasn't so crazy the cycle will come and go with less destruction?

Yes, that's my hypothesis at the moment. :) In Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection, Pierre wrote, "As noted above, our ancestors believed deeply in the connection between human behavior and natural catastrophes. If humans behaved well, Nature would remain calm, but if humans behaved badly, this would trigger the wrath of the 'gods' and Nature would react fiercely." and goes on to give examples of how these things did occur. He goes into it much further, of course.

I think that makes the most sense. Then again, aren't we overdue for a bombardment? If that's the case, one might suppose we haven't reached the critical point of war/chaos/decadence that triggers the comets - or if we have then there's some time lapse between hitting critical mass and their arrival.

 

[sedenion]

If that's the case, one might suppose we haven't reached the critical point of war/chaos/decadence that triggers the comets

Think about that : You still have an internet connection, food in the freezer, TV shows, clean water... the economic collapse will set the "social-chaos" concept to a new level.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Going on with this book and seeing Dr. Strange and thinking about the Hillary camp's black magic rituals reminded me of something.

We have this built in terror of the unknown. There are spooky things out there that we cannot measure, some of which are anecdotal and subjective, just by nature of the phenomenon.

That does not discount them, but it does kind of set some kind of loop back idea on things. By nature of ignorance and fear, are we "feeding" this "higher power", much like a psychopath enjoys to see people cower in front of them?

Then it dawned on me! Laura said how she never had been attacked so much as she did when the information on psychopaths came out.
Not aliens, ghosts, spirits, dimensions- No, psychopaths- here and now.
You would think that the dark magic people (not the small fry like Vinnie, but the "masters") would try and damage/eliminate Laura for exposing the mystical. But no, it was exposing the mind of the psychopath and how entrenched they are in society that brought the onslaught!

Two possibilities come to mind:
1) This is only because it is solid science and is hard to refute, so to attack for the mystical would be wasted energy since that field in itself is full of red herrings and disinfo.
and/or
2) The source of this STS "future" is seeded in us. We could even see it as a time loop, 4d STS wouldn't exist without us and we wouldn't exist without them. Same for STO, so where is the split? Subjectivity-wishful thinking -> STS Objecivitity -> STO , Both products of intelligence and consciousness.
Psychopaths could be what they need to protect- serving a purpose to push us into subjectivity.
Psychopaths bring the conditions that make people feel like they have less and less control, like the quote from the book "Locus of control is also mediated by levels of certainty or uncertainty in physical and social environments. "
If things below the surface are strange, like quantum theory shows, it makes sense why "they" would want to control consciousness by keeping us "dreaming" of subjective reality (improbable possibilities?). Of course from our level of STS existence, what we see as probable are the cycles of destruction and rebirth that we some how want to overcome. Maybe objectivity is accepting this happened, happens, and will happen? So STS could be born of the fear of this loop, which makes them create time/space loops in order to "fix it" (but it is not broken!).

It's all fascinating to think that it starts with us, in us, through us! It's not as exciting as having magical powers , but gives a clue as to why STS never has enough to be satisfied. As the C's said, they have to get infinite knowledge, to own all, otherwise their delusion won't work.

 

[Divide by Zero]

A couple experiments showed that "believers" had higher levels of dopamine, the reward neurotransmitter. It makes neurons fire more, making connections where there may be none. Some experiments such as seeing patterns in random dots or static were conclusive.
Later on in the book he connects this to some phenomena such as OBE's, sightings, and other miracles.

Finding the Signal in the Noise
What is it that dopamine does, exactly, when it enhances belief? One theory—promulgated by Mohr, Brugger, and their colleagues—is that dopamine increases the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), that is, the amount of signal your brain will detect in background noise.11 This is the error-detection problem associated with patternicity. The signal-to-noise ratio is, in essence, a problem in patternicity—finding meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise. The SNR is the proportion of patterns that your brain detects in the background noise, whether or not the patterns are real. How does dopamine affect this process?
Dopamine enhances the ability of neurons to transmit signals between one another. How? By acting as an agonist (as opposed to antagonist), or a substance that enhances neural activity. Dopamine binds to specific receptor molecule sites on the synaptic clefts of the neurons, as if it were the CTS that normally bind there.12 It increases the rate of neural firing in association with pattern recognition, which means that synaptic connections between neurons are likely to increase in response to a perceived pattern, thereby cementing those perceived patterns into long-term memory through the actual physical growth of new neural connections and the reinforcement of old synaptic links.

Increasing dopamine increases pattern detection; scientists have found that dopamine agonists not only enhance learning but in higher doses can also trigger symptoms of psychosis, such as hallucinations, which may be related to that fine line between creativity (discriminate patternicity) and madness (indiscriminate patternicity). The dose is the key. Too much of it and you are likely to be making lots of Type I errors—false positives—in which you find connections that are not really there. Too little and you make Type II errors—false negatives—in which you miss connections that are real. The signal-to-noise ratio is everything.

He himself seems to be lacking connections when it comes to obvious conspiracies. Like explained above, we see that the balance is everything! After all, if you don't have the motivation to look further- you make a type II error: That it would be wasted energy/time to go in a certain direction without a definite payoff/solution. He also stated in past chapters how some amazing inventions, like PCR for DNA testing, came from people who had odd beliefs. Perhaps this is why there is such a black or white thinking between (modern day) skepticism and belief, each a product of the extremes.

How is it that people come to believe something that seemingly defies reason? The answer is in the thesis of this book: beliefs come first; reasons for belief follow in confirmation of the realism dependent on the belief. Most belief claims fall somewhere in the fuzzy borderlands between unquestionably true and unmistakably false. How do our brains process such a broad swath of beliefs? To find out, in 2007 neuroscientists Sam Harris, Sameer A. Sheth, and Mark S. Cohen employed fMRI to scan the brains of fourteen adults at the UCLA Brain Mapping Center. They presented their subjects with a series of statements designed to be plainly true, clearly false, or undecidable at the moment. In response, the volunteers were to press a button indicating belief, disbelief, or uncertainty. For example:
MATHEMATICAL
True: (2 + 6) + 8 = 16.
False: 62 can be evenly divided by 9.
Uncertain: 1.257 = 32608.5153.
FACTUAL
True: Most people have ten fingers and ten toes.
False: Eagles are common pets.
Uncertain: The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 1.2 percent last Tuesday.
ETHICAL
True: It is bad to take pleasure at another’s suffering.
False: Children should have no rights until they can vote.
Uncertain: It is better to lie to a child than to an adult.
They made four important discoveries:
1. There were significant reaction time differences in evaluating statements. Responses to true (belief) statements were significantly shorter than responses to both false (disbelief) statements and uncertain statements, but there was no difference in reaction time detected between false (disbelief) statements and uncertain statements.
2. Contrasting the reaction to true (belief) statements and false (disbelief) statements yielded a spike in neural activity associated with belief in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, an area of the brain associated with self-representation, decision making, and learning in the context of rewards.
3. Contrasting the reaction to false (disbelief) statements and true (belief) statements showed increased brain activity in the anterior insula, associated with responses to negative stimuli, pain perception, and disgust.
4. Contrasting the response to uncertainty statements with both true (belief) statements and false (disbelief) statements revealed elevated neural action in the anterior cingulate cortex—yes, the ACC that is involved in error detection and conflict resolution.

What do these results tell us about belief and the brain? “Several psychological studies appear to support [seventeenth-century Dutch philosopher Baruch] Spinoza’s conjecture that the mere comprehension of a statement entails the tacit acceptance of its being true, whereas disbelief requires a subsequent process of rejection,” Harris and his collaborators of the study reported. “Understanding a proposition may be analogous to perceiving an object in physical space: We seem to accept appearances as reality until they prove otherwise.” Thus, subjects assessed true statements as believable faster than they judged false statements as unbelievable or uncertain statements as undecidable. Further, because the brain appears to process false or uncertain statements in regions linked to pain and disgust, especially in judging tastes and odors, this study gives new meaning to the phrase that a claim has passed the “taste test” or the “smell test.”38 When you hear bullshit, you may know it by its smell.

So basically, to accept something as true gives a reward and requires much less processing power.
To see a false, gives a negative feeling- a disgust, as they say "I smell bullshit!".
And ambguity uses more error detection- more processing power.

It reminds me of the C's saying how anticipation restricts. It also connects to Laura's thread on how believing lies changes the brain. Reward centers lead to more need for it. It seems that as a species we are lead to this point- a "zombie" perhaps, consuming easy data, not working to discern true from false because it's easier just to hide where true or false doesn't hold as much of a threat to survival/well being - Modern day internet, media, education system (memorize/regurgitate), and lack of close social interaction comes to mind.