Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 01:33 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 01:41 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:06 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

Quote: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.

A common error that keeps being repeated by individuals here. It to speak of something like application as if it’s mind independent.

Methodologies like thoughts are reducible to neurochemistry in the brain. If not they're entirely useless, and indistinguishable from gibberish.

Verifying whether someone follows a particular methodology that I used, and label as the “scientific method”, is not much different than the question as to whether someone thinks like I do, when making a series of observations.

It’s reducible to the point made earlier, as a matter of their neural pathways in the brain firing up when they make these same observations, eliciting a sensation that corresponds to them saying to themselves it’s accurate.

If I get the consensus to agree with me, than I feel confident that my conclusion is 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, 01:39 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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.

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. The computations, the recognitions all reducible to it's circuitry.

Here's a few question for you. Are human brains, perhaps with some work, or education, able to accurately follow these rules, at least as well as this computer brain can?

Suppose you conclude based on your observations that something is true. That computer making the same observations renders it as false. What would this mean? This would mean that I didn't follow the rules accurately, even if believed I had followed the rules accurately.

Now the human brain, is not predisposed to think the way my hypothetical computer is. Perhaps we can say we have to shape, through education etc.... for the human brain to think along these lines, and hold only things that follow along these lines as true.

Now all this raises some additional points and questions:

If I asked my computerized brain, whether only things that follow along the lines are true. It would respond that the answer is inconclusive. That it is preprogrammed to accept only things that follow along these lines as true. But cannot answer whether only those things that follow along these lines are true. If I asked it whether or not I should only believe things are true based on compliance with these rules, the answer would also be inconclusive for the same reason.

If asked it whether or not reality itself breaks down in it’s entirety to these rules that are already preprogrammed into his computerized brain, the answer will also be inconclusive. That he can only render reality in such a form, but cannot confirm whether reality itself is accurately represented by that form.

To put in another way, his perception is entirely methodological. And as a result he cannot render whether any ontological statement about reality is true or not. The same way if it was programmed to see only in shades of red, it can’t confirm whether or not reality itself is only in shades of red, but that as a result of his programed methodology is only able to render it that way for itself.

When it comes to us, for those of us, who unlike the computer program, hold that with these rules in hand that we can supposedly attune our minds and be led by them to accurate representation of reality, this would not only would require our minds to be able to be attuned to these rules, but reality itself has to be attuned in such a way to be reducible to them. It would not only require minds capable of recognizing the truth, but a truth that we can recognize.

Now we’re not predisposed by evolution to recognize the truth, our minds are not naturally attuned to it, as in the case of our computer brain. But through our skill and cunning, through learning, we are able to hone and shape our minds to such an attainment, rearranging the circuitry of our brains to do just that. Correct the faulty maps given to us at birth. We’re born with brains that are confused, and can remain confused our entire lives, as to what the truth is. But through cultivation, through a proper attuning of our minds, we can hear the harp that truth plays.

And it is your belief that an attuned mind, is one that follows the rules of the scientific methods, the rules of logical calculus, and that’s the tune the harpist plays. A conclusion that the computer brain can not draw, but our brains do, that is if we believe there is such a thing as truth.

"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, 01:41 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm curious about this perfect information bit. Do we humans ever have perfect information about anything we render a decision on?

Yes.

For the statement "the sky is blue", it is possible to have perfect information by going outside and looking at the sky, since the only relevant information is what color it is.

Anything else is just playing meaningless word games with "perfect information".

"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, 01:46 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Here's a few question for you. Are human brains, perhaps with some work, or education, able to acutely follow these rules, at least as well as this computer brain can?

There is no reason why they shouldn't be, though reaching that point may be difficult from a practical standpoint.

(20-09-2015 01:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  To put in another way, his perception is entirely methodological. And as a result he cannot render whether any ontological statement about reality is true or not.

Well, no, actually. Assuming that the computer is actually programmed with a knowledge of the principles of philosophical grammar, it could - quite rightly - point out that most ontological claims are meaningless and false by definition.

"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, 01:50 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:41 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 01:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm curious about this perfect information bit. Do we humans ever have perfect information about anything we render a decision on?

Yes.

For the statement "the sky is blue", it is possible to have perfect information by going outside and looking at the sky, since the only relevant information is what color it is.

Anything else is just playing meaningless word games with "perfect information".

I wouldn't say perfect information is required, I would say "sufficient information". Because to me perfect would require something bordering on omniscience.

But if the difference between my use of sufficient, and yours of perfect, is merely semantical, wouldn't it already be a conclusion drawn by thinking rationally? If I was thinking rationally about whether or not something is true, I would be considering whether the data is sufficient enough for me to draw that conclusion?

So the computerized brain capable of thinking rational, already factors this part in.

"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, 01:52 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I get the consensus to agree with me, than I feel confident that my conclusion is right.
That's the religious approach. Either by concensus or governing body.

With science they have to operate within the confines of the method. All claims, all critiques are based on application of method.

If something is correct or not is determined by the successful application of the method rather than by popular vote.
It's entirely different to the religious method of a vote by the old men in the power position and then imprisonment, beheading, burning, excommunication, de-fellowship, ... of those that don't toe the line.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 01:55 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Well, no, actually. Assuming that the computer is actually programmed with a knowledge of the principles of philosophical grammar, it could - quite rightly - point out that most ontological claims are meaningless and false by definition.

Or in other words, rather than programming the computer to respond to answers that it can't render accurately, because of the methodology imposed on it, as inconclusive, or unable to compute.

We program the response to be: "ontological claims are meaningless and false by definition."

"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, 01:56 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or in other words, rather than programming the computer to respond to answers that it can't render accurately, because of the methodology imposed on it, as inconclusive, or unable to compute.

We program the response to be: "ontological claims are meaningless and false by definition."

If you like.

And your point is...?

"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, 02:01 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:52 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 01:33 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I get the consensus to agree with me, than I feel confident that my conclusion is right.
That's the religious approach. Either by concensus or governing body.

With science they have to operate within the confines of the method. All claims, all critiques are based on application of method.

If something is correct or not is determined by the successful application of the method rather than by popular vote.
It's entirely different to the religious method of a vote by the old men in the power position and then imprisonment, beheading, burning, excommunication, de-fellowship, ... of those that don't toe the line.

Again determining successful applications are mind dependent activity. Therefore reducible to neurochemistry in the brain.

If I'm determining whether or not someone's application is successful, it's by observing those applications, and waiting for the neural pathways in my brain to light up and elicit a sensation corresponding to me saying to myself it's a "successful application".

Since this occurred for me, and occurred for him, and a bunch of others, we agree it was successful, accurate and 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, 02:07 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
It would seem that Tomasia's "point", such as it is, has to do with the fact that our knowledge of anything has to be filtered through our brains, and thus... our knowledge has to be filtered through our brains. And our brains can be wrong about some things. And some principles in some frameworks of knowledge are taken as axiomatic.

No, I'm not sure why this thread exists, either. There may be something behind all of it having to do with ontological questions and the inadequacy of the human brain for finding answers to said questions, but this is also rather pointless, because the entire "study" of ontology is itself rather pointless. As has been pointed out previously, most ontological claims are meaningless and false by definition; those that aren't are trivial.

Tomasia, if you have an actual point to make, try to make it. This thread is going nowhere.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: