Taken from: I am - A blueprint for sentience by Krys Norman
Beliefs are the backstop of rationality. They are learned through emotional experiences and by instruction from a trusted other. A baby will fall down a step a few times and then believe it will fall down if gets too close again. Later on, having fallen down to the ground many times with varied discomfort, a toddler will believe that it can't fly. There is also the instruction by a trusted other: parent, teacher, priest etc. Here they will be told something and have linked emotional input, the love or adoration, the pleasure of new information or a sense of loss. In all cases, beliefs are created in conjunction with emotion and are immune to any rational argument against them.
Take an interpretation of the triple brain system that appears to exist within humans. One section reacts to bodily functions. One section produces an ever increasing and interlocking understanding of the world based on the consistency and strengths of emotional reactions to situations. Each event that elicits an emotional reaction will form beliefs depending on the consistency and intensity of the details of each event. They happen in the present as a reaction to stimulus (or lack of). A belief is a particular set of associations and emotional responses. It then uses the beliefs to give a quotient of overall emotional responses for even very complex situations. The third section produces many virtually instantaneous possible future scenarios simultaneously and presents it to the second to be reacted to according to its beliefs. The second brain will choose a decision that is "most good" at every point in time . It appears to be able to access a highly complicated array of patterns simultaneously and make a relatively straightforward assessment. This results in a logical decision based on what is best for its host at that point in time. There may well be highly conflicting good and bad beliefs from any particular situation. That is to say that the emotional reactions might be both consistently positive and negative. The logical decision for action (or inaction) will be made according to what is believed to create the highest positive reaction or the avoidance of the greatest negative reaction. The negative reactions will still occur but the second brain will have made a decision. The action can be disseminated into the many varied capabilities that a human can do.
This isn't what is actually happening in a brain. It is considerably more complicated and elaborate. As a model to work on, though, it can provide an insight into the sequences and combinations that produce the decisions of any animal brain. The more sophisticated the brain the more nuanced the beliefs can become. As these develop still further the secondary brain section can start to create beliefs that events will happen following various actions that are available to choose. These are said to still be in the present. There can be a sequence of emotional cause and effects and elaborate beliefs based on the consistency of previous similar combinations. The sequence can be defined as varying stimuli that maintains a certain threshold of emotional response. Once the response is below the threshold for a certain period of time the event has passed. The animal's brain will wait for the next stimulus and make decisions in the next event. As well as learned ones, there can be "hard wired" beliefs that come out of the auto response section and lead to instinctive behaviour. This provides the basis for feeding, fighting, cleaning, procreation, and nurturing. The ones that do this best in their environment get to pass on their genes above the others. This has appeared to lead (somehow) to the instinctive behaviour in their offspring.
Changes in a species' environment might limit their ability to flourish; harsh environments might suit other species better. There is a constant battle for the limited resources in any ecosystem and there will always be winners and losers. A belief system based on instincts of previous generations' environments and can only go so far if the environment changes too rapidly and catastrophically. Conversely, a belief system that layers learning through experience of events and direct causality of actions is much more adaptable and resilient. This happens to the higher level animals in addition to their instinctive responses. Once something has learned through experience, a belief is created that a causal event may happen again following a similar set of circumstances. A fox can show her cubs how to hunt whilst they are still being fed and protected by her. As the ability to create learned beliefs increases, the species tends to rise in the food chain. This is not absolute but there is a general correlation between the sophistication of nuanced belief structures and the level in the food chain. This success through sophistication has flourished all around the world. There are some exceptions to this with the likes of termites and sharks which have been wildly successful and resilient over millions of years of evolution and environmental changes. They look to have honed their bodies and their instincts to such an extent that they have got to see the dinosaurs come and go. Some of these creatures may also be present in very similar states long after humans have gone, too.
The ability to learn through experience can create a belief structure that is highly valuable to a species in any environment. That being said, there are also benefits to developing yet another section of a brain. One that can provide possible scenarios to be mulled over before they happen or even with them never happening at all. This allows for choices to be made for future events. In turn, it provides a platform for the comprehension of time. Instead of a continuous streaming of "nows" there can be "tomorrows". The decisions can extend from fight, flight, eating, even just doing nothing, to sowing crops, building shelters, using fire etc... The advantages of making decisions based on a probable future makes any species that has developed this considerably more capable than those that haven't. An extension to this is abstraction. If a possible situation can be prepared and reacted to in a future that is different from the one occurring in the current time then there is capability to contemplate any situation that is different to the current one. It need not just have a series of periods leading one after another. It could result in an understanding of viewing a scene from a different angle, say above; maybe using repeatable noises to convey a meaning; maybe visible marks to do the same and can last longer. The very start of mankind's intellectual development can be seen as the point at which their current beliefs and decision processes were augmented by a simultaneous array of probables also being created for scrutiny. The greater the capability of forward and abstract thinking the greater the intellect. If this indeed was the path to producing more adaptable and successful humans then their sophistication would increase to the point of abstract learning. Words spoken by trusted others would add to an individual's belief set. They could be taught.
It might take millennia but the words that were spoken aloud to others might be abstracted as similar words spoken but not externally. They could still be heard, but only by the owner. These would be thoughts. Private, confusing and scary. Not only that; coming from nowhere, this would have a negative effect and would not help the individual with its prosperity and survival. A solution would be sought. The associations and beliefs of the existence of others around them could be abstracted to aligning a similar set for just each individual's self. If it was coming from somewhere tangible that would stop it being negative and maybe become the default status. It would be a naturally occurring bi-product of a process of future and abstract possibilities rather than the ethereal state that we tend to give it.
The rationale in human minds will base all its logical reasoning on its accumulation of beliefs (including all the conflicting ones). For example, up is up; water is wet. We all have utterly consistent experiences of these physical sensations that have created indefatigable and incontestable beliefs of the world around us. No one can be fooled into thinking that they might fly upwards as it goes against their core world view.
There maybe variance in the speed and ability of any rationale but the logical outcomes all depend, ultimately, on its host’s set of beliefs. As each set of beliefs is derived from its own particular emotional responses to its own particular experiences then the logical outcomes will be unique. The emotional reactions may be inherently very similar in many individuals but the type and timing of their experiences vary so much that a gamut of personalities can be created. One belief maybe even be on the intellectual superior capability of themselves and so lead to a blinkered, proud reasoning.
As beliefs are being generated in individuals the instant emotional reactions might also be validated by positive reinforcement. If they are repeatedly allowed and encouraged to be validated by a number of others then this belief is amplified. Over the years this is so ingrained with so many beliefs that it forms a culture in groups. Beliefs will form such that what ever the group does is right, according to that group. The majority of a group will mainly agree with themselves. Whereas other cultural groups will not validate the cultural beliefs that are different from their own. The ability of cultural identity to amplify positive emotional reactions leads to a mutual desire to ghettoise. The group becomes more differentiated in even the most subtle of ways and can lead to a negative reaction of other very similar but separate groups’ beliefs.
The beliefs of any person are emotionally defined. They form the basis of their views and opinions about themselves and the world around them. They are pretty much fixed up to the point where a conflicting event occurs that has so much emotional content that the belief is then redefined. At this point we "change our minds" and then believe differently from then on. As a person matures this happens less and less frequently and sometimes, never at all. Their set of beliefs is sacrosanct to them and must be right. This gives the impression that their beliefs are fixed and rational. An extension of this is that the beliefs are held in a certain state but can be changed at any point in time if keeping that belief in its present state will lead to a surge of negative emotion being experienced. This can affect many beliefs simultaneously and result in behaviour, fully justified logically, that is at odds with the personality of the individual in other situations. Highly social people can still passionately want to bring back hanging for certain offences. Another such belief is that this very process does not happen. The sense of self leads to a an abstract sense of consciousness and it's sum of thought processes, the rationale.
As time goes on and beliefs are amended to protect the consciousness from experiencing negative emotions then other processes can come into play. One resulting behaviour pattern is to congregate and converse with other people who have the same set of beliefs. They might have many conflicting beliefs but share the core amendment processes. It is in everybody's interest in that group to condone and encourage the belief amendment processes in each other as this emotional acceptance adds to the beliefs shared. They harden and the like minded groups become increasingly intransigent over the years.