|
Title: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 14, 2019 "Knowing and believing are different words that are often used in religious teachings across the world. ‘Knowing’ means that you possess knowledge, are shrewd, suggestive or deliberate. On the other hand, ‘believing’ means that you have accepted something to be true, or you are confident and have trust in something. For example: you believe that you are beautiful, but people know that you are not."
Ref : http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-knowing-and-believing/ With knowing too much, but I still do not believe, I would like to know on how brain works on believe issues in biological point of view. For example, reading bible knowing Jesus's story, but knowing more is not make believing stronger. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any suggestions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVY5gEIiEGk Knowing [I am Here !!!] -> Believing [How to believe?] -> Taking Action Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 15, 2019 Let's use a biblical story as an example, since you mentioned it. The more certain you are about the story, that is, the more you know about it - the facts, the proof, or evening being there to witness it - the more you'll believe it. You believe in it because you witnessed it - it's factual.
That being said, belief is based on facts, and facts are stored in our brains, but the location depends on the fact that is known to you. For example, if a smell triggers a memory (a known fact), it'll activates parts of the brain that deals with scent. I'm curious though, are you confusing belief with faith? Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 15, 2019 If I know the rules (Knowledge), but not believing (Faith) it, so I don't take action.
Belief – An opinion or judgement in which a person is fully persuaded. Faith = ( Belief × Action × Confidence ) Confidence – Trust that is based on knowledge or past experience From biological viewpoint, what is the barrier on taking action under this situation? Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 15, 2019 Quote From biological viewpoint, what is the barrier on taking action under this situation? Generally, the more you know (which relates to intelligence, IQ), the less riskier you are. However, IQ does not completely dictate character or morals, which plays a major role in decision-making, too. I think of a gambler: what pushes him/her to gamble their possessions at a 49/51 probability, 50/50 probability, and 90/10 probability (for/against). Put yourself in these shoes, would you gamble all your monetary possessions if you were given an opportunity at a 50% chance of doubling it? If you answer no, write down why.
It's the brain’s risk/reward system that makes our choices. Before we continue discussing, are we on the same page in terms of your question on knowledge/belief? Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 15, 2019 I put more weight / score on bad experience than good experience, I would like to know on what wrong is the Brain’s risk/reward system. so even through I fail 30% and success 70%, but I memory strongly on bad experience, would it be the barrier on believing process?
Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 15, 2019 Decision-making - according to one source (stated below) - depends on emotions and rationality, two systems at work.
System 1 monitors the environment one way or another to minimize risk to survival and maximize reward. Feedback continually updates the system about the environment. The emotional response system evaluates all the incoming sensory information, and then scores it for a 'winner-takes-all' competition to decide on the best response. The details of the process are intriguing. All incoming sense data are placed into context, assessed for their predicted risk or reward value in the emotional brain, and the likely error of that assessment. The results are then ranked to allow disparate information to be compared until a successful competitor for stimulating a response emerges within the system. More on this here: https://philosophynow.org/issues/112/The_Brains_Risk_Reward_System_Makes_Our_Choices_Not_Us The fact that poor experiences in the past govern your train of thought is a survival mechanism that prevents you from making poor decisions. But your contention is what biological process allows this decisions in the brain to be made. I think the article discusses it well. Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: duddy on Jul 15, 2019 I don't think anyone can boil down the location of where decisions are made. Making a split-decision depends on rationality and emotions, as explains above 👍 Belief is the acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. If you're right 7 times out of 10, then you haven't accepted the idea that 7/10 is good enough for you. You're in fear that 70% isn't good enough for you. This depends on how high you set your standards. My standards in school were always 80% or more. If I achieve 80 or more, I felt confident and accepted my fate. This means that decision-making likely activates the emotional triggers in your brain. Is there a region in the brain that deals with emotions only? I think it's the limbic system.
Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 15, 2019 Brain’s risk/reward system is easily mess up with today's society expectation.
Children does not want to go to school, because he does not feel fun with exam. Parent orders kids to go to school daily, Based on risk/reward system, children would not learn well without feeling good. But Children cannot make decision on not going to school. Parent's expectation mess up with Children's risk/reward system. How do it affect Children's decision process? If teacher wants Children to learn actively, Children must feel good (emotion that trigger action) and prepares for Exam. 1) Making decision based on evaluating Risk / Reward in order to take Action 2) Making decision based on order without evaluating Risk / Reward in order to take Action How do above 2 case affect human behavior differently on ACTION? Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 15, 2019 The scenario you mentioned above, where the child does what he/she us told is also based on risk/reward. The risk of disobeying the family may lead to punishment, reducing family social value, hurting your parents feelings; the reward is love and care from your family.
Children are incapable of reasoning the same way as adults; the process becomes more established during/after 5 years of age as a child becomes better able to make connections between ideas. Before that, logic and reasoning isn't a profound part of their life. There's a psychological test that's used on children called the marshmallow test. In fact, it is one of the most famous pieces of social-science research: Put a marshmallow in front of a child, tell her that she can have a second one if she can go 15 minutes without eating the first one, and then leave the room. Whether she’s patient enough to double her payout is supposedly indicative of a willpower that will pay dividends down the line, at school and eventually at work. Passing the test is, to many, a promising signal of future success. In addition, it's an indicator of how well decisions are made based on emotions and rationality. Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 15, 2019 Passing the test is, to many, a promising signal of future success. In addition, it's an indicator of how well decisions are made based on emotions and rationality. The risk of disobeying the family may lead to punishment, reducing family social value, hurting your parents feelings; the reward is love and care from your family. The risk of disobeying the family may lead to punishment, reducing family social value, hurting your parents feelings; the reward is love and care from your family. Parent's expectation is A+, ok A is still acceptable. For risk / reward system, the probability of reward is 20% and the risk is 80%, that is not even 50:50 chances, so children gets punishment 80% all the times (Bad Mood). Teacher wants kids to learn actively, There is already a BIG mess up on ACTION based on risk / reward system. What should Teacher do in order to make children learning actively ACTION? Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, to everyone very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 15, 2019 What should Teacher do in order to make children learning actively ACTION? The teacher's main role in the classroom is to evaluate the students. They report to the parents of their students behaviour and grades. I think that's enough of an intrinsic motivator for more kids. However, teachers also can threaten to take away recess or fun activities in class if behaviour is not upheld. The fear of losing this freedom often motivates the poorly behaved children to listen Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 16, 2019 System 1, the emotional system for processing sensory information and generating responses to it according to a risk or reward weighting, is automatic, intuitive, and fast, even impulsive.
System 2 is the rational, slow, and controlled system of thought, where we reason through our options. (For more about these systems of thought, see Thinking Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman, 2011.) I used to order Meal A for dinner, but I decide to select Meal B based on system 2, but I select Meal A at the counter automatically (Maybe I forget to order Meal B). If I want to set Meal B as default into emotional system, I would like to know on how to reset Brain’s risk/reward score more effectively. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 16, 2019 I used to order Meal A for dinner, but I decide to select Meal B based on system 2, but I select Meal A at the counter automatically (Maybe I forget to order Meal B). If I want to set Meal B as default into emotional system, I would like to know on how to reset Brain’s risk/reward score more effectively. Sounds like you made an impulsive decision! There was a study conducted on gamblers last year about this. It can be found here: https://psychcentral.com/news/2012/06/16/brain-can-be-trained-to-be-less-impulsive/40192.html The research shows that people can train their brains to make less impulsive decisions by consciously stopping simple hand movements. The study assessed whether asking people to stop making simple movements while in a simulated gambling situation affected how risky or cautious they were when betting -- and it did by 10 to 15 percent. The study shows that inhibition training reduces risk-taking during gambling in healthy volunteers but it does not show that inhibition training reduces gambling addiction. More studies are now needed to discover whether training people to boost a low-level ‘inhibitory muscle’ could help treat addictions, but these initial findings are promising. So it's many things combined. Your brain is at the center of it all, but also you could reprogram your muscle memory to not many impulsive movements too. Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 16, 2019 There was a good memory with Meal A, that is a powerful message, how past emotion controls our behaviors.
Do you have any suggestions on how to relieve past emotion in order to change daily behavior from biological viewpoints? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYT_VygOMkM Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 17, 2019 "rewiring" your perception would require your neurons to form different connections than those formerly established -- that's all there is to it biologically, not much more I can add.
As mentioned, you need to make a conscious effort, strong-willed to be willing to make this change. Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 17, 2019 you need to make a conscious effort, strong-willed to be willing to make this change. Strong-will is required to change from knowing to believing. It seems that emotion memory is the strong connection between neurons. Is there any trick making neurons easier to form different connections than those formerly established from biological viewpoints? Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 17, 2019
There isn't a hack to it, it really takes effort to be a calm, collected person. Also, genetics has a lot of influence on shaping your personality too. This is why it's hard for people to change as well, since you can't change your genes, but can condition yourself to be the way you want to be. Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 17, 2019 When I feel sad, maybe some organ not function well, and stop hormone.
When I feel love, do some organ generate any kind of hormone as well? Would those hormone generate memory within muscle for any kind of emotional feeling? Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 17, 2019 Dopamine is the hormone responsible for controlling mental, emotional responses, and motor reactions. Essentially, it is the main neurotransmitter for experiencing happiness. When a nostalgic memory is recalled, depending on the memory itself, it could instill happy, fear, sadness, etc. The level of release for this hormone is likely proportional to that, and likely plays a role in decision-making, too. I'd say this is part of system 2, where emotions are used to dictate how a decision is made by the brain.
Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 19, 2019 Would those emotional memory stay within muscle / organs? If people receive transplant organs, would received people feel donor's emotional memory as well?
Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 19, 2019 Would those emotional memory stay within muscle / organs? Your brain would have to activate the muscles. Fine motor skills exhibited by your hands is coordinated by small muscles which involve the synchronisation of hands and fingers with the eyes. Motor neurons in your hands will innervate a small number of muscle fibers to activate movement with the direction ultimately originating from your brain. If people receive transplant organs, the recipient who's used to moving their hand a certain way will find limitations in their former ability. They'd have to retrain their muscles (through physiotherapy, for example). The donor's emotional memory resides in the donor's brain, not hand. Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 19, 2019 emotional memory is stored on gut (feeling), not the brain, so emotional memory is kept on organs (emotion, fast) instead of brain (logic, slow). If people receive transplant organs, would recipient feel donor's emotional memory as well?
Do you find any related articles about this issue? Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 19, 2019 emotional memory is stored on gut (feeling), not the brain, so emotional memory is kept on organs (emotion, fast) instead of brain (logic, slow). If people receive transplant organs, would recipient feel donor's emotional memory as well? The brain deals with emotions via the limbic system mostly. "Gut feeling" is a term used to describe your conscience; your conscience is based on your experiences and what you have gone through. That being said, I don't think that it's related to any organ in your gut, but interesting, >50% of serotonin (the feel-good neurotransmitter) is manufactured in your gut. AND, gut bacteria can influence mood and emotions (via the production of metabolites), highlighting their connection with the brain. Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 20, 2019 I would like to know on how higher level (go to forest) and lower level (go to high mountain) of oxygen affect gut bacteria related to mood and emotions (via the production of metabolites),
Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: bio_man on Jul 20, 2019 Gut bacteria are obligate anaerobes, which means they die in the presense of oxygen. Thus, altitude has no affect on then as long as they're in the gut, where very little oxygen exists anyway.
Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: duddy on Jul 20, 2019 I would like to know on how higher level (go to forest) and lower level (go to high mountain) of oxygen affect gut bacteria related to mood and emotions (via the production of metabolites), Do you have any suggestions? Thank you very much for any suggestions (^v^) I don't think it's a matter of metabolites, but there is a correlation between viewing nature scenes and good mood, and being exposed to nature affects mental well-being. That's discussed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3699874/ Of course, there's a lot more to it than this, but here's a short excerpt which I think summarizes how it works. I don't want to get off topic with your thread, so it if this is some other avenue you want to discuss, feel free to start a new topic on it. The ANS (autonomic nervous system) plays a central role in governing the response to stress and how the body recovers following a stressor. Indeed, Lane and Thayer utilized functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine the hypothesized heart–brain connection and found concurrent associations between vagal influenced HRV (heart rate variability) and changes in blood flow through areas of the brain known to be involved in emotional responses, attention, and working memory. Additionally, the prefrontal cortex has been observed to play a role in the top-down regulation of HRV, as demonstrated using direct current stimulation of the dorsolateral area of the prefrontal cortex during viewing of negative images compared to neutral images (images of nature were not used in this study). The relaxation and restorative effect of nature might help combat the rising incidence of psychological stress by providing a potential resilience tool. Previous analysis of the restorative effects of nature suggest that participants recover faster from induced stress (in terms of HR) when, during the recovery, they view nature through a window or view projected scenes of natural environments. HR recovery in the latter study was purported to occur due to, in part, an enhanced recovery of parasympathetic activity. It is, however, unknown whether the benefits of nature on cardiovascular reactivity continue to occur after exposure has ceased. Good luck! Title: Re: Knowing but not believing Post by: oemBiology on Jul 21, 2019 Continue discussion on following post :>
https://biology-forums.com/index.php?topic=1930159.msg4981301#msg4981301 |