4.4 Article

Evidence for Spinozan Unbelieving in the Right Inferior Prefrontal Cortex

期刊

JOURNAL OF COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 659-680

出版社

MIT PRESS
DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_01964

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Humans have the ability to think about possible states of the world without believing in them. This research explores two competing theories about belief and its neural basis. The results support the Spinozan theory that understanding without belief requires an additional process of unbelieving, as indicated by increased activation in the right inferior frontal gyrus.
Humans can think about possible states of the world without believing in them, an important capacity for high-level cognition. Here, we use fMRI and a novel shell game task to test two competing theories about the nature of belief and its neural basis. According to the Cartesian theory, information is first understood, then assessed for veracity, and ultimately encoded as either believed or not believed. According to the Spinozan theory, comprehension entails belief by default, such that understanding without believing requires an additional process of unbelieving. Participants (n = 70) were experimentally induced to have beliefs, desires, or mere thoughts about hidden states of the shell game (e.g., believing that the dog is hidden in the upper right corner). That is, participants were induced to have specific propositional attitudes toward specific propositions in a controlled way. Consistent with the Spinozan theory, we found that thinking about a proposition without believing it is associated with increased activation of the right inferior frontal gyrus. This was true whether the hidden state was desired by the participant (because of reward) or merely thought about. These findings are consistent with a version of the Spinozan theory whereby unbelieving is an inhibitory control process. We consider potential implications of these results for the phenomena of delusional belief and wishful thinking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据