Our sense of knowing flows from hidden depths of the brain

The human brain remains largely mysterious, even though modern neuroscience has learned a lot about it. It's unclear to what extent computer artificial intelligence will come to mimic our brains.

But at the moment this much seems clear. Just as "deep learning" takes place in artificial intelligence in a manner that even AI programmers can't figure out, our own sense of knowing arises from hidden depths of the brain that we can't figure out.

Meaning, when you've been trying to figure out what to do about some problem -- like whether you should take a new job that's been offered to you, even though you aren't unhappy in your old job -- and suddenly you have a feeling, This is what I need to do, there's no way you can tell how your mind, the brain in action, came up with that conclusion.

This is a key theme in Robert Burton's fascinating book, On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not. 

Burton, a neurologist and neuroscientist, says that a sense of knowing is closely tied to our feeling of having a life purpose. I wrote about this in a 2009 blog post based on his book, "Science and religion share a sense of purpose." 

Scientifically-minded people have a sense of purpose and meaning just as much as religiously-minded people do.

Burton talks about how Richard Dawkins, a noted atheist scientist, is ferociously dedicated to debunking mythologies and irrationality -- such as a denial of how evolution has guided the course of life on Earth.

Dawkins lives for this, just as the Pope lives to serve the cause of Catholicism, or a woman lives to raise her children, or a man lives to become the best at some sport.

So a felt sense of meaning and purpose is the root out of which grow stalks of action and commitment. Scientists do science because it is meaningful to them. Religious people do religion for the same reason.

Different strokes for different folks. Whatever turns you on.

We should force ourselves to distinguish between separate physiological categories of faith -- the basic visceral drive for meaning that has real purpose versus the unsubstantiated cognitive acceptance of an idea. Compassion, empathy, and humility can only arise out of recognizing that our common desires are differently expressed.

Nicely said, Dr. Burton. Both science and religion need to recognize that their common ground is a sense of meaning and purpose.

Fairly frequently a commenter on this blog will argue, "science is a form of religion." That's wrong. He or she says that because scientists are deeply devoted to the pursuit of truth about the physical universe.

But devotion grows from a sense of meaning. It doesn't need religion. People can be devoted to all sorts of non-religious things, such as improving one's golf game.

So religious believers should differentiate between the cognitive and non-cognitive aspects of their faith. Meaning, the feeling they have toward divinity, the meaning they derive from religiosity, is shared by scientists (and everyone else on Earth aside from the deeply clinically depressed).

However, the cognitive side of their faith is something different. These are the concepts that accompany the feelings. "Jesus is the Son of God." Well, you think so. But where is the proof?

I'm not justified in questioning the meaning someone gets from his or her religion. I am justified, though, in questioning their purported facts about the cosmos.

Facts can be challenged. Meaning can't.

If you wrongly believe that Donald Trump actually won the 2020 presidential election, even though there is no evidence that the election wasn't fairly decided, I have some hope of convincing you otherwise by correcting your facts. 

However, I've got very little chance of getting you to give up your conservative political views, or your fervent allegiance to Trump. Your political persuasion, like your religion, is a source of profound meaning to you that isn't given up lightly.

In large part because you aren't capable of altering what gives your life meaning. Neither am I. Nor is anybody else. Yes, what we find meaningful can change over time. But not through our conscious efforts. 

Burton writes in a final chapter about an exercise earlier in the book in which he shared a paragraph about a mysterious object that had various qualities. Spoiler alert: the object was a kite. He says:

Once imbedded within the conclusion that this paragraph refers to a kite, the feeling of correctness cannot be consciously dislodged or diminished. We can consciously input new contrary information; only the hidden layer of the neural networks can reweight the values.

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. 

I've written a few other blog posts about Burton's book:

Knowing that you know: impossible
The three wisest words in the world: "I don't know"

 

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

We are at best students. Learning capacity is built into us. So let's be the best we can be... Better students.

[Spence Tepper]

I this regard, being better students, we can view our own sense of knowing as simply a sense, one piece of information, a response, and not a conclusion. We are not ready to draw conclusions, merely working hypotheses.

[Appreciative Reader]

"Facts can be challenged. Meaning can't."

True.

And I'd contend that the rational reasonable man derives meaning from facts, as opposed to wishful thinking and/or fantasy.

----------

"...you aren't capable of altering what gives your life meaning. Neither am I. Nor is anybody else. Yes, what we find meaningful can change over time. But not through our conscious efforts. "

Not in a God's-eye-view deterministic sense perhaps, but down at the ground level, down in the everyday world where we ordinary mortals operate, I think we can actually make a choice to be rational, as opposed to not. (Sure, ultimately that choice of ours is itself governed by preceding causes, but here we're going back to God's-eye-view determinism. I mean that apart.)

What I mean is: What specific thing gives us meaning is, sure, that's kind of what is given to us, at least largely. But whether we seek meaning within a superset of situations and things and ideas that are rooted in reality, as opposed to seeking such in wishful thinking and fantasy, that is a choice that, when we get down to our everyday selves from a deterministic God's-eye-view perspective, we do make, every moment of our lives --- regardless of whether or not we make that choice consciously and deliberately, or unawares and flowing-with-tide as it were.

[Appreciative Reader]

"We are not ready to draw conclusions, merely working hypotheses."
(Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 11, 2022 at 06:27 AM)

-------------------------

I'm afraid, Spence, that's a religious POV, and one that misunderstands how science fundamentally works, and indeed what might be the reasonable rational way in which to apprehend reality, in our daily everyday lives.

The fact is that ALL conclusions are, in a sense, working hypotheses.

Except, a working hypothesis is one that hasn't yet been sussed out fully, at whatever level we're working at. While a conclusion, a theory, is.

-----

I'm calling that a religious POV, because only religious thinking even conceives of the kind of ironclad laid-in-stone conclusions and beliefs, next to which rational conclusions pale into wishy-washy uncertainties. The rational mind that is free of the taint of religiosity realizes that the former is an impossibility, and the latter the only kind of certainty that exists in the real world.

-----

So yes, we are indeed, in some cases, ready to draw conclusions. Always with the understanding that every conclusion is itself open to correction; but that does not mean that we cannot draw conclusions. To think that is to not understand how science works, and how everyday rationality works.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Conclusions, science has proven, are not so conclusive.

Gravity functions for all intent and purpose, as Newton detailed. Here.

But outside that context it is, as Einstein demonstrated, quite another thing, even connected to time.

And we will surely learn other things about gravity as well, because this same science has not actually found the mechanism by which gravity actually influences separate objects.

We're learning.

Science is actually less about proving than uncovering and discovering. We learn things along the way of discovery.

Hence there are many more principles, laws, dynamic forces, and other mechanisms of this creation than we ever knew before.

And if scientific experience is any basis for a forecast, there will be more stuff we could never have imagined coming to light.

'Facts' is another word that gives a sense of firmness but as it turns out is quite bound to context and perspective. I think you aluded to this. Yes the sun does appear to move around the earth. All the data supports that observation.

But,, alas, deeper study has shown that it is the earth that is moving.

Same facts, but one is out of context. New facts put the first set into a more objective context.

So no the sun doesn't revolve around the earth. That wasn't, actually, a fact, though the observational data isn't wrong... Just a deeper context.

Conclusion was wrong. People stopped looking because they had their "facts" and drew their conclusion. Not science.

[um]

If I tell that the oranges are to be found in the fruitbox behind the door, it make no sense to believe it if you don't look for oranges. That too is not enough, you have to get up and open the door, to find if it is true what you started out ti believe, accepting it to be possible.

To discuss these things without having any interest in oranges or the willingness to stand up, is ....xxxxxx .....free to use any adjective that suits you.

Those that demand for prove are often not at all interested in that prove but it can be used to openly tell truth as to where the stand.

Those that know how to live their own life, are mostly not interested in talking it over with others.

Talking life is for the most a matter of indecision, not knowing what to do and where to go...and the biggest trap is to discuss the solutions that others have found and put to paper.

Real things are self evident. ... ask the farmers

[Sonya]

Hey, don’t forget about “alternative facts”. 😂

You can debate pretty much anything and everything until the day you die, but it won’t bring peace.

What about enjoyment and despair? Are those subject to scrutiny? Should we debate with someone as to whether they’re happy or depressed? Do we even feel the need to prove to another person that they’re not really happy when they say they’re happy? Should we try to prove to someone that their not afraid when they say they’re afraid.

So what if people choose to belief in life after death? How does that hurt the atheist? Because this isn’t about God since God is a concept that isn’t definable to the rational mind.

It seems what the atheist really dislikes is the belief in life after death. But how does the belief in an afterlife make the world a worse place to live in? Could it be possible that world is actually a better place because people do believe in an afterlife—it gives people hope.

Has it been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there isn’t an afterlife?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonya

I think the Atheist car against religion goes something like this..

"God told me to do it."

[Spence Tepper]

Oops "case against religion."

[Uchit]

Yes there definitely is a knowing, call it intuition , a gut feeling , that guides you if only you knew how. I, like many blind sangat have suffered unnecessary for many years, going to mind numbing boring RSSB satsangs, and against our gut insticts guiding us not to go. I find that this constant repetition and indoctrination of a living master garbage that was forced on us, was contrary to our intuition. My gut was telling me that arnt we all God's children, and not just the one self proclaimed man made God in human form, aka Gurinder the fake guru of RSSB. This mind numbing repetition, had caused the intuition to become disconnected, leaving us to blindly followed the fake guru , who was only installed for self gain and the propagation of the RSSB cult. GSD used every tool available to his disposal to try and achieve a world wide RSSB footprint: hypnosis (ever wondered why you are told to.look into his eyes), black magic, plagerising other religious doctrines inline with a living master, the outfit, peer pressure, the centres around the world , seva (slavery); reward schemes, youtube and social media...etc. All this and more, given that there is no foundation to RSSB , no dogma, no ideologies other than copy and paste from Hinduism, sikhism , buddhism. Gurinder Dhillon , fake ass guru, your days are numbered, karma will be served.

[Sonya]

@Spence

Funny 😉

I don’t understand the desire to convert the whole world into one belief system.

I’ll share my opinions but I don’t feel called to proselytize a belief system…

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonya
An environment that celebrates different, even apparently conflicting beliefs is the environment I love best. It demands a lot from each of us to learn and respect the other. To honor the other.

I think Church of The Churches comes quite close to this.

I love of debate, and I have no interest in an echo chamber of similar views. I learn nothing there.

But in vigorous debate I am forced to consider what others believe. I must spend time in detailed consideration, even opposed. And while that debate appears to occur without resolution, all participants, even on a subconscious level, are changed. The information they hold dear is now in us regardless of our opinions about it

We just have to let those changes proceed, as they will anyway on that deeper level, to help make us whole, despite our opinions, and so next time we are not quite so limited in our view as we were before.

[um]

@ Spence

>> But in vigorous debate I am forced to consider what others believe. I must spend time in detailed consideration, even opposed. And while that debate appears to occur without resolution, all participants, even on a subconscious level, are changed. The information they hold dear is now in us regardless of our opinions about it<<

Hahaha ... I don't think so.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"Hahaha ... I don't think so."

I do respect your view, Um. You are right, from your perspective and experience, in what you understand the path of Sant Mat to be.

However, to know what is going on inside me, or the path as my Master has laid it out for me, that would be a very special kind of knowledge that you are implying, and I suggest you may overreach in making that claim.

[um]

@ Spence

Some, especially from the USA and some very near and dear to MCS, based upon their conversation with their "inner" master, started acting out and communicating things in ways that were not in agreement with the teachings and sometimes against the moral codes.

Suggested to verify their actions with the outer master was always refused based on what most students came to understand that the inner master was the real master.

It has nothing to do with "my" understanding

If we are taught that red is the signal in the traffic light to stop, it is for all.
And the exceptions to that role are also known to all.
Nobody has the legal authority to change it.

So it has nothing to do with understanding

Based upon how you react here, I suggest that you will always do whatever suits you. No matter what argument is put before you no matter who does put it before you., you will lent a deaf ear.

[um]

and ..Oh Spence,

Starting their own spiritual shop or spreading their own teachings, based upon their own so called inner masters, is up to theme and I do not mind at all ... nothing at all.

But showing up telling that their teachings is an agreement with the teaching of RSSB is
something else.

It is and intruding... sneaky intruding of the sphere of others.

[um]

And Spence

People like Uchit, Manoj and friends, go on repeating the same messages convinced as they are that their toughts will root one day in the readers.

You to, believe, hope, that your thoughts will get hold of others.

If there is anthing that goes against the grain of my v=being than is it that my toughts would affect, effect or intrude the mind of others.

Fingers should only point at the moon and not in anybodiies face.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"Some, especially from the USA and some very near and dear to MCS, based upon their conversation with their "inner" master, started acting out and communicating things in ways that were not in agreement with the teachings and sometimes against the moral codes."

Really?

How strange that Maharaji initiated them! :)

Even Baba Ji and several RSSB functionaries have done things which publicly appear questionable. Truly, and the evidence supports these things are indeed of questionable ethics.

But how can we really know what's going on with other people's lives? Or what greater purpose there may be?

Avoid passing judgment on others. Why complain about the spec in my eye when there is a plank in yours?

Aren't we brothers, after all?

What you are talking about is each soul and their teacher, who is more than capable of providing correction in the time and way he sees fit. If you claim to trust Maharaji, if you don't like Satsangis setting up shop, don't do it. Leave it to him.

I can't get through a moment without His company and guidance.

If it were not for Him I would be judging people left and right, and in error, as you are doing here.

Did Maharaji instruct you to intervene, to become the RSSB police by publicly passing judgment on others?

I don't do it anymore. Join me. Life is much easier. We are brothers, after all.

Perhaps you enjoy a more perfect life.

I do not know, for example, Um, your experience of the path, nor the plan your teacher has for you. Perhaps this is all what Maharaji told you to do.

I just take it for granted that it is for the best.

But if your inner Master has said otherwise, it would be helpful and interesting for you to own that.
Did these people ask you to judge their behavior or did you choose to do this publicly as you have here?

When we point a finger of blame at anyone, three fingers eye pointing back at us.

You are free to share your understanding of Sant Mat, and your perspective is interesting. But not when it turns into looking down your nose upon other people, religions or beliefs.

I don't think contrasting one's opinion with the foolishness of others is a very good way to rationalize one's views.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
Some, especially from the USA and some very near and dear to MCS, based upon their conversation with their "inner" master, started acting out and communicating things in ways that were not in agreement with the teachings and sometimes against the moral codes.

And who is best qualified to help them? You or their teacher?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"If there is anthing that goes against the grain of my v=being than is it that my toughts would affect, effect or intrude the mind of others."

And yet we both share our opinions here. Yes?

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"Based upon how you react here, I suggest that you will always do whatever suits you. No matter what argument is put before you no matter who does put it before you., you will lent a deaf ear."

Isn't that the human condition? Are you so different? Does anyone want to be proven wrong?

Yes, I do. Prove me wrong. But be prepared for the opposite!

[um]

@ Spence

It is a human condition but not for all.

Given your mental frame it is impossible for others but in the end YOU will prove it to yourself.

[um]

@ Spence

as I wrote, there is nothing to lose for me but for you there is.
Your debating talent helps you but is not helpful against nihilism , emptiness.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"as I wrote, there is nothing to lose for me but for you there is."

"Your debating talent helps you but is not helpful against nihilism , emptiness."

Meditation is the answer to that. Love and happiness come from practice.

Then you won't want to judge actions of anyone but yourself.

Attend to your meditation, as you were instructed, and you need not worry about me at all. You will find you are OK, and then pointing at me won't be of interest nor of purpose.

Meet me where we are both brothers.

[Spence Tepper]

And as far as judging yourself, Um, in that place I'm speaking of you won't even do that...Because You will have left you a ways back. There won't be anyone to judge, but me, nor you.

Find your bliss, follow your bliss.

And if you need to debate whether you can do this, come back here.

But it's far better to walk then argue that walking isn't possible.

[Spence Tepper]

Oops, should read
"There won't be anyone to judge, not me, nor you."

[Sonya]

We recently hired a new manager for our IT/Cyber Ops. I have never met a single human being in my entire who could manage to alienate every single person in a unit any faster than this person. Our team was ready to get rid of him and the higher ups gave him an ultimatum—do a 180 immediately or leave. He apologized to every single person in Ops the next Monday and has changed his behavior completely. His job pays way too much for him to just walk away. Half the team doesn’t believe he can truly change and that eventually he’s going to go back to his old ways. The other half of the team is willing to give him a chance.

I mean, truthfully he has no choice—the day he starts acting like he did at first, he’ll be gone. But it’s a great learning lesson and it may transform who he is as a human being. He is learning our way of doing things—we’re a team and everyone specializes in something unique. We can’t afford to lose any of our guys and we are very close and reliant upon each other. We wouldn’t be as successful at we we do if we didn’t support and rely on each other so strongly.

This new guy is starting to witness a different way of doing things. He’s beginning to understand that we work together only because we trust each other and we have to maintain that trust. Each member is very different but we have fun and we have a lot of respect for each other.

He’ll benefit just from watching the way we work together and see that a good team isn’t just made up of lots of talented people—a good team is made up people who are skilled at what they do and will go the extra mile for each other.

The old me wouldn’t have given him much of a chance, but the new me doesn’t believe you can claim to believe in a forgiving God if you don’t believe that people CAN change.

The truth is we’re all growing and learning and changing all the time. I like it when people pleasantly surprisingly prove me wrong. I’m certainly willing to believe that he won’t just change his behavior but that eventually in his heart of hearts he’ll embrace a better way of relating to people.

[um]

@ Spence

There is a difference between acting saintly and being saintly, let alone a saint.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Um
You wrote
"There is a difference between acting saintly and being saintly, let alone a Saint"

My only concern is with acting like a decent human being. Hence always offering olive branches. Every Saint I know says we should try to. It's within our grasp.

[um]

Spence, spence ... you are to good for this world

[Appreciative Reader]

"Conclusions, science has proven, are not so conclusive."

Sure, Spence. Agreed.

But how on earth do you get from there to ""We are not ready to draw conclusions, merely working hypotheses", which portion of your earlier comment was what I was responding to?

You do know the difference between theory and hypothesis, right? I mean obviously you do. This sort of thing sounds a lot like how the weirdos say things like "Evolution is just a theory, so I'll believe in creationism instead, I mean it's not fact just a theory, and a theory is just a hypothesis with feathers on, and why must I not be able to believe what seems right to me, because why should one belief take precedence over another?"

[Spence Tepper]

Hi AR
Often times, especially in discussions about neuroscience, one small piece of scientific data leads to a lovely and expansive theory about mind and soul.

But to test that theory, working hypotheses need to be constructed and the research conducted. Science doesn't end in a theory.

The scientists who research evolution, the anthropologists and geneticists, may believe in the theory of evolution but they don't conclude its a proven fact. That's why they are in the field doing research. Because they love that theory, its elegance, and the way the data both supports and refines it further. It's not the same as Darwin wrote. It's been taken much further. For that you need more than belief. You need new working hypotheses.

You have to be unscientific to close the book with a conclusion about things science is deep into investigation today.

So, believing something is quite different than drawing a final conclusion.

If you love a theory, pursue it. It's better to pursue science than to use it like a rock to throw at others who don't share your beliefs.

It may turn out that the Truth contains elements of a few different things.

It doesn't bother me that people believe God created the earth on one day. One day is a metaphor for all time, according to St Paul in the Bible. Time itself was created for us, he wrote.

An open mind sees so many more things.

Therefore, I say, let's be careful not to close our own with conclusions that have yet to be established scientifically.

And let's enjoy researching and experimenting with our favorite working hypotheses.

[Spence Tepper]

One more Biblical reference in the Bible. On the seventh day God said it was done and it was good. St. Paul in the New Testament explains that from our perspective in this point of time that hasn't happened yet.

We are still in the middle of that process of creation, but St. Paul's standards.

None of that is a substitute for science, however, but to explain that misunderstandings are often perpetuated by the unwillingness to have an open mind and enter into research. That's what's most important : keeping an open and interested mind.

[Sonya]

One more Biblical reference in the Bible. On the seventh day God said it was done and it was good. St. Paul in the New Testament explains that from our perspective in this point of time that hasn't happened yet.

We are still in the middle of that process of creation, but St. Paul's standards.

None of that is a substitute for science, however, but to explain that misunderstandings are often perpetuated by the unwillingness to have an open mind and enter into research. That's what's most important : keeping an open and interested mind.
Posted by: Spence Tepper | April 14, 2022 at 12:25 PM

Hi Spence,

That’s a good point. I’ve noticed that pastors/ministers who go to seminary and get their Ph.D have a totally different view of the Bible because they’re required to study the origins and cultural history surrounding events. They also study the Bible as it was written in Hebrew and Greek and seem have a pretty good understanding that a lot has been lost in translation. I find the more educated ministers tend to be much less fundamental and dogmatic—they are usually much more open minded.

[Spence Tepper]

Hi Sonya
Yes the Bible is a wonderful and fascinating book, filled with the most amazing wisdom and contrasted with the most depraved violence. The inconsistencies are evidence enough this it is a very human work. But the mystical references, and teachings about Love are simply unparalleled.

So, just like humanity, we gain when we look for the diamonds buried here and there and don't mind the fact that we still must pick and choose. There is no escape from that.