The boat of perception in the ocean of unconsciousness

Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Professor: Ph.D Itzhak Aharon
Joao Jacob Buchala

The new field of neuroeconomics reviews old theories and opens new
possibilities for interpretation of ancient phenomena. However critics remark
with great skepticism that this is nothing more but a new phrenology,
neuroeconomics have increasingly developed valuable and shocking
discoveries.

When the issue is decision making in general, standard theories assume that
people make conscious choices and choices cause a positive personal gain.
“Consumers are usually assumed to choose, given their preferences and
information, optimally and unemotionally”[2]. But outside of ideal models,
people often do not know which option will produce the best outcome and
they are neither conscience of the conditions to which they are submitted.

Imagine that in an experiment with a laboratory mice, there are two different
cheeses. One of them is located on the mouse's left and another one in the
right. If the mouse chooses the cheese on its right, can we conclude that this
decision stemmed from a conscious mental effort? Or, should we conclude
that the mouse evaluated the information and qualities of the cheeses in order
to get the best for itself? And, if the conditions change and instead of the
cheese the mouse is given a shock, is there an increased probability of
choosing the cheese on the left because of an upgrade in state of
consciousness? These words and concepts seem to be questionable when
we are dealing with mice, however, why are we satisfied with these
explanations when we are dealing with humans choices?

B. F. Skinner has clearly demonstrated the relationship between

reinforcement of a behavior and its relation with reward. And in reinforcement-

1
learning theories, future rewards are referred to their value functions.
However, this demonstrates that despite the mutual dependence between
behavior and reward, this relationship explains the function of a behavior and
not the process. Furthermore, the debate start to be more intense when
cognitive theories explain behaviors by process, even that most of the time
using mental processes.

With the invention of equipment such as fMRI detailed studies of the brain
raised the possibility of union between the margins that separated the function
of the behavior and its process, ,"In neuroscientific models, stable behavioral
choice patterns are the end result of learning; in economic models, they are
the starting point of analysis" [2]. Thus, neuroeconomics give its contribution
using mathematical frameworks, experimental paradigms, and people's neural
activity.

One can argue that neuroeconomists try to simplify the brain. However, the
type of brain activity is probably that of complexity known as chaos. Chaotic
systems are those which are extremely sensitive to initial conditions: a tiny
change in input can have dramatic effects on its outcome. Therefore, in the
brain, it is possible that a simple firing of one neuron, among billions, at a
critical moment, may cause a shift in the entire system. Chaos is not,
however, random. Over time chaotic systems produce semi-stable patterns of
activity that put surrounding activity in harmony with them.

Consciousness is notoriously hard to define, and some thinkers feel it is best

left undefined. However, we must establish some guidelines as to what
consciousness is, or is not! The central question is if the consciousness is
built by the accumulation of information, as described by the old theories.
And, following this logic, the more information is evident, the greater is the
awareness. However, the amount of information in a system is not only
dependent on the amount of its activity or storage, it also depends on how the
system works. And what is shocking is that this paradox is expanded when
current researches on neuroeconomy reveal that people rarely choose what
is the best for them.

2
This paradox is not only found in one cognitive field. For example, when we
have talked about aesthetic perception we referred to ancient views based on
the Greek philosophy (aisthesis-aishtanomai): "the study of sensory or
sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and
taste"[3]. Rarely is the aesthetic perception under the control of the
conscience. According to Zeki [4], modern aesthetics refer to the study of
neural bases of beauty perception and how the visual brain works with the
aim to obtain true knowledge about the world. The aesthetic experience of the
reality begins with visual analysis of the stimulus, which undergoes further
levels of brain processing that ends or does not end with sense of judgment.
"This progression of processes may lead to an aesthetic experience on the
basis of some biological and embodied mechanism"[5], and these factors are
most often beyond the core brain responsibility of conscious decisions.

Putting our expectations in the development of the new theories that are
based uniquely on the human consciousness may be a loss of resources! And
in order to show that choices imply unconsciousness, cognitive psychology is
also not sufficient. Its categorization of states of mind into emotions rely
mainly on the introspective examination of subjects, and such categorizations
can be suspected of being culturally dependent. The only way in which we
can resolve this problem is by combining behavior, contingences with cerebral
activities, and thought that sees the real “why” of completed evaluations.

A study conducted by Kawabata and Zeki [6],

using fMRI, investigated the neural activity of
people beauty perception during observation of
different categories of paintings. Mainly they
contrasted the report of the subject with their
neural processes. The fMRI images revealed
different brain activation for judged-beautiful
stimuli. Both neutral and judged-ugly images Figure 1: Localization of the
Orbitofrontal Córtex (OFC)
generate different activity on medial

3
orbito-frontal cortex (OFC). “OFC is known as central of planning behavior,
sensitivity to reward and punishment” [8]. During the experiment lower
variation of activity was found in this region for stimuli judged as ugly. This
lower activity is a reaction of the body and not something that the subjects
choose with their conscience to do.

Some researches show that there are tons of processes happening during
one simple action. In a study of the brain response to an audio-visual movie
were found that exists brain regions that are not in “silence” during movie
watching. They spontaneously react and activate although they are not
directly responsive to the movie stimuli. At this point we have to take care
because the brain is not a distinct entity outside of the person but a system
much more complicated than we have imagined. To investigate this
phenomena scientifically we have to place neuroeconomy in the philosophical
position known as monism. This position assets that whatever consciousness
is, it is a phenomenon of the world just like any other.

Everything start to be more difficult and chocking

when, according to Itzhak Aharon [19], the reward
in the aesthetic experience rarely have mandatory
relationship. There are situations which exist on
the brain level a dissociation of rewarding of
aesthetic behavioral response! In this research,
heterosexual male subjects rate beautiful male

Figure 2: Localization of the

faces as very attractive but do not expend effort to
nucleus accumbens (Nac) increase viewing times of these faces. The data
shows us that a brain aesthetical reaction happens
in areas of pleasure but not areas of reward, and

when the subjects are dealing with beautiful female faces the activity starts to
be higher in those areas. Neuro-activity is found in the area of nucleus
accumbens (NAc) an area known as important on the role of reward and
pleasure.

4
People not only have the illusory feeling
that they are consciously aware of
everything that is going on in their
immediate environment, but they also
have the feeling that their immediate
conscious experience is the only possible Figure 3: Localization of

way of sensing the world. We see colors, Primary Visual Cortex

shapes, contours, objects, distances, and interactions among other things

and, when all of these impressions are felt, the brain brings meaning and
comprehension to this hole picture. Furthermore, our brain supplies
reasonable interferences to our consciousness. In fact our perception during
emotional reactions, for example, to provocative themes may not literally
exist in the reality, because virtually everything we know about our world
entered our “mind” in some form through our sense. It suggested that
conscious awareness is constructed by the brain.

One research with people watching pictures of Van Gogh shows that "primary
visual cortex and the 'what' pathway, especially the Fusiform Area are directly
involved while other areas, such as the Frontal Areas, may be also active" [9].
Furthermore, much of the neurological activity goes on without reaching the
threshold of consciousness but, nevertheless, has profound importance in
everyday cognition. "In order for us to understand the wold (…) many
unconscious, subliminal, neural processes must take place" [10].

Humans frequently invoke an argument that their intuition can result in better
decisions than a conscious reasoning. In a experiment [15] the association
process was put on test. Subjects were exposed to visual and the objective
was simple, maximized monetary outcome. But, they had to find the right
rules to get the money.

5
Figure 4: Subliminal Conditioning Task; Successive screenshots displayed during a given trial are shown from left
to right, with durations in milliseconds. After seeing a masked contextual cue flashed on a computer screen, subjects
choose to press or not press a response button and subsequently observe the outcome. In this example, ‘‘Go’’
appears on the screen because the subject has pressed the button, following the cue associated with a rewarding
outcome(winning £1)

There are evidences on this research that learning process can occur without
conscious processing of contextual cues. This finding might relate to previous
evidence for implicit or procedural learning, where behavioral responses can
be adapted explicitly [14]. Researches have clammed that subjects can
achieve good acquisition without explicit knowledge of the task structure.
Thus, when the subjects explicitly are asked to state what the cues looked
like, they reported in majority of case that they don't had no idea. And, what is
surprisingly, when the subjects were presented with the cues, now unmasked,
they reported surprise at seeing the symbols while asserting that they had
never seen them before.

Before we go on with our discussion about consciousness, it might be wise to

stop and consider an important issue that may guide our search. Namely,
what is the function of consciousness? And, how subliminal and spontaneous
processes became part of human nature?

Over the course of the human history, natural and sexual selection have
shaped our biology. Modern human behavior can thus be best understood by
Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness (EEA), the time frame during which
intensive process took place [11]. Much of the underlying architecture of
modern human biology may have adapted at the genetic level to human
environment of the Pleistocene Epoch. "Behavioral phenotypes that evolved

6
in the EEA influence much of our modern tendencies, motivations, and
general responses across multiple domains" [12] both the proximate and the
ultimate-level.

Nowadays areas of the brain may have different relationship with the world
comparing with pleistocene period. For example sports cars is a male-specific
sexual stimulus with activity on area of ventral striatum and occipital regions,
high-lighting a man's social capital and financial stability. Other functions are
remarked for a complex evolutionary backgrounds; males viewing pictures of
attractive female faces also had preferential activation of the ventral striatum
and reward circuitry. The additional coupling of the prefrontal cortex with the
amygdala, on the other hand, reminds us that decisions are naturally also
dependent on the emotional and arousal levels that a potential reward elicits.

The function of consciousness at this point is to work on the perceptual

integration. In construction a global interpretation of the perceptual world that
we experience, consciousness allows many competing perceptual and
cognitive processes to interact and influence each other. In this way
reasoning can use consciousness to select actions.

It means that the human brain is not an empty vessel – right from the start it is
packed with material, and that the brain not always works in ordained pattern.
Over the evolution other neuro-network are build and reinforced as we interact
with the world around us. And the conscience rise showing patterns and order
inside of the complex activity.

At this point if we know the state of all of a person's brain cells at a certain
moment, we can presumably know his behavior 5 milliseconds before he start
to think about that. But that predictability breaks down rapidly over time.
Knowing the entire state of this brain at that moment will not say if he will
travel to Brazil in the end of the next year.

The predictability is not the main tendency of the actual neuroeconomics.

Why? Because knowing the real expectations of a person's behavior is so
powerful as far as prediction of his behavior. No doubt over the years we will

7
improve our understanding of the factors over behavioral decisions to
confound the observer, that permit a person to do something other than the
obvious. But real understanding of the real brain processes allow us to control
contingences and the functions of the behavior.

From a theoretical point of view, these studies have generated important

insights into the human consciousness. The decision making usually involves
chaotic neural processes, including activities between spontaneous and
controlled processes, between conscious and unconscious processes. These
findings suggest that, contrary to normative models claim that human beings
are perfectly rational and possess unlimited power for cognitive processing,
the human perception is usually affected by habitual and automatic mental
process.

We started with the question how humans can behave unconsciousness.

Neuroeconomics is still in its infancy, but it has had an impressive start.
Although incomplete, the evidence available to date is beginning to clarify with
the possibility that neuroeconomics methodology might eventually trace whole
processes of the human behavior.

8
References:

2. Colin Camerer (2008). Neuroeconomics: Opening the Gray Box. Neuro 60,

3. Zangwill, Nick. "Aesthetic Judgment", Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 02-28-2003/10-22-2007.

Retrieved 07-24-2008.

4. Zeki S; Art and the Brain. J Conscious Stud: Controvers Sci Humanit 1999, 6:76-96

5. Di Dio Cinzia; Neuroaesthetics: a review. Corrent Opinion in Neurobiology 2009, 19:

682-687

6. Kawabata H, Zeki s: Neural correlates of beauty. J Neurophsysiol 2004, 91:1699-1705

7. Kringelbach, M. L. (2005) "The orbitofrontal cortex: linking reward to hedonic experience."

Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: 691-702.

8. Bechara, A.; Damasio, A. R.; Damasio H. & Anderson, S.W. (1994) "Insensitivity to future
consequences following damage to human prefrontal cortex". Cognition 50: 7-15.

9. Kanwisher, N.J., McDermott J.(1997) "The fusiform face area: A module in human
extratriate cortex specialized for face perception". Journal of Neuroscience, 17, pp.4302-11

10. Robert L. Solso. The Cognitive Neuroschience of Art: A preliminary fMRI observation.
Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, No, 8-9, 2000, pp.75-85

11. Tooby J. Cosmides L. 1990. The past explains the present: emotional adaptations and the
structure of ancestral environment. Ethology and Sociobiology 11:375-424

12. Justin R. Garcia, Gad Saad. Euvolutionary neuromarketing: Darwinizing the neuroimaging
paradigm for consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Behavior. 398-413

13. Ilan Goldberg, Shimon Ullman, Rafael Malach; Neuronal correlates of ‘‘free will’’ are
associated with regional specialization in the human intrinsic/default network. Science Direct,
Elsevier. 588 – 601

14. Bayley et al., 2005; Berns et al., 1997; Destrebecqz and Cleeremans 2001; Seitz and
Wwatanable, 2003.

15. Subliminal Instrumental Conditioning Demonstrated in the Human Brain: Mathias

Pessiglione, Predrag Petrovic, Jean Daunizeau, Stefano Palminteri, Raymond J. Dolan, and
Chris D. Frith; Neuron 59, 561-567, 2008.

9
16. Prigogine, Ilya (1997). End of Certainty.

17. B.F. Skinner (1953) Science and Human Behavior.

18. Catania, A. Charles (1999) ; Aprendizagem - Comportamento, Linguagem e Cognicao.

19. Itzhak Aharon et al. Beautiful Faces Have Variable Reward Value. Neuron, Vol. 32, 537–
551, November 8, 2001

20. Ilan Goldberg a, Shimon Ullman c, Rafael Malach; Neuronal correlates of ‘‘free will’’ are
associated with regional specialization in the human intrinsic/default network; Consciousness
and Cognition 17 (2008) 587–601.

10