Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:05 AM)natachan Wrote:  You determine the "truth" value of a statement by trying to determine if it conforms with the real world. That's all.

There might be a real world outside of my mind, but it's only the one inside of my mind that I can recognize, it's the world that breaks down in my head that exists for me. I can talk to other minds who make similar observations and hold a similar picture of the world as I do, and than believe to myself that the portrait of the world in my head is an accurate rendering of it.

But that's about it.

But I'll always run across other minds who have an entirely different picture of the supposed real world as well.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 11:31 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 11:36 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:15 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 11:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So by doing as I said:

Isn't it by making a series of observations, like the result of some test that I or others conducted, and insuring that they comply with the rules of the scientific method, the rules of logic, logical calculus, etc...?

No. It's by doing a test which you have ensured complies with those rules, then comparing the statement in question with the results of the test.

I'm not sure what you think you've said here, that's any different than what I've said, but that's fine.

If my computer brain is programmed to comply to those rules, is able to do actual test, or at very least observe actual test, insuring the testing complies with those rules, and compare the statement in question with the results of the test, it can tell what is true, just as well if, not better than the best of human minds.

Correct? And all the visual observations, all the computations, are taking place in it's computerized brain correct? It's the brain that processing all this information, and determining for him if it's true or not, or inconclusive.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 11:35 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If my computer brain is programmed to comply to those rules, is able to do actual test, or at very least observe actual test, insuring the testing complies with those rules, and compare the statement in question with the results of the test, it can tell what is true, just as well if, not better than the best of human minds.

Correct? And all the visual observations, all the computations, are taking place in it's computerized brain correct?

Correct.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:35 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 11:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If my computer brain is programmed to comply to those rules, is able to do actual test, or at very least observe actual test, insuring the testing complies with those rules, and compare the statement in question with the results of the test, it can tell what is true, just as well if, not better than the best of human minds.

Correct? And all the visual observations, all the computations, are taking place in it's computerized brain correct?

Correct.

The visual observations, all the computations, the conclusion being drawn that it's true, are all taking place in it's computerized brain, therefore reducible to it's circuitry.

No argument right?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The visual observations, all the computations, the conclusion being draw that it's true, are all taking place in it's computerized brain, therefore reducible to it's circuitry.

Correct.

Just make whatever point you have in mind and be done with it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 11:43 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
And since the computer is determining what is true based on accurate representation of the rules it's to follow, what it renders as true, is actually true.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 11:51 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And since the computer is determining what is true based on accurate representation of the rules it's to follow, what it renders as true, is actually true.

No. What the computer renders as true is actually true assuming that it has perfect information about everything that it renders a decision on, and it is true because it matches reality, not because the rules have been followed.

A gun is the mechanism through which a murder is done. That murder is not reducible to the firing of a gun except in the most asinine and worthless sense.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
20-09-2015, 12:01 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 09:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 08:54 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Only if we take it as written that the computer contains, by definition, only true information. As this takes the computer out of the realm of practicality (since the computer would need infinite processing power and inputs that could take in all information in the universe in order to be certain that everything in it was true, as well as infinite processing speed to put all of the information together and find out what is actually true), it's not really worth discussing.

But you don’t believe a computer brain, would need infinite processing power and inputs to match and perhaps to some degree exceed our most rational minded person?

We could possibly create a computerized brain in the distant future, that can think rationally, think and apply the rules of the scientific method, and the rules of logic, the rules of logical calculus, as you would put it. Such a brain wouldn’t necessary require infinite processing power and inputs, any more so than our brain does.

It might not be able to tell whether every observation it makes is true or false, and might even regard observations of the truth or the lack thereof as inconclusive, that there’s not enough observable data, etc.. for this computerized brain to draw a conclusion.

But assuming it can take in the same observations, that any human mind can. Any observation it makes and deems as true, would actually be true. For the same reason that an observation confirmed by the scientific method, the rules of logic, logical calculus would be actually true.

In this scenario what is actually true would be reducible to the circuitry of the computerized brain, reducible to the zeros and ones, assuming that rules the brains follow are accurate representations of those aforementioned rules, and methods (which would also be reducible, to 0s and 1s here as well). Correct right?

It would also indicate whenever you draw a conclusions contrary to the computerized brain here, based on the same observations, that you didn’t properly follow the scientific method, the rules of logical calculus as you should have, and that conclusion you draw are false as a result.

Ummm....

The scientific method doesn't really dub anything as true.

Things which endure rounds of rigorous testing are accepted as provisionally true, but that's not the same thing. It might assign 99.5% probability to the truth of a proposition, but that's not the same thing.

Also, the scientific method can and does endorse (provisionally) things that are a little bit off or even outright false.

Same for reason and rationality.

So no, the computer you are describing would not assign full truth values as you are suggesting, and would not be completely inerrant as you are suggesting.

The superiority of the scientific method, rationality, etc are that they accept far FEWER wrong things as true, and that they are better than the alternatives at self-correcting their errors after the fact. It's not 100% (and it's dubious that anything could be 100%) but they're leagues ahead of their competitors in terms of testable accuracy, predictive power, and willingness to improve upon its own knowledge. (This might be because they operate based on standards of accuracy, predictive power, and willingness to improve, rather than on, say, conformity, tradition, and predetermined answers.)

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
20-09-2015, 01:06 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 05:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  By forming a consensus of individual brains.
It's not just a consensus. It's an application of the scientific method by various people. With their results also documented for others to see and evaluate, to challenge or to verify.

(20-09-2015 05:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If some handful, beyond the majority here, touch, feel, hear, see, etc.. the same things, but it doesn't cause the neural pathways in their brain to light up in such a way, they would say it was inaccurate.
If a minority find an issue with the claims/evidence/conclusion they document it, pinpointing where the issue is. If the issue is valid then others must overcome that issue, perhaps modify the experiment and try again.

Documenting all the way, showing how the evidence, and conclusions apply to the method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 01:20 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:51 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 11:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And since the computer is determining what is true based on accurate representation of the rules it's to follow, what it renders as true, is actually true.

No. What the computer renders as true is actually true assuming that it has perfect information about everything that it renders a decision on, and it is true because it matches reality, not because the rules have been followed.


I'm curious about this perfect information bit. Do we humans ever have perfect information about anything we render a decision on?

If not, wouldn't that mean we can never determine what is true, because our information is never perfect?

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: