Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 02:23 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 01:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(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...?

That if we asked it whether ontological naturalism is true, whether physicalism is true, any other ontological belief is true, the answer would be thats it's not only meaningless but false by definition.

It requires no other computation on it's part other than distinguishing between ontological statements, and non-ontological statements, and spewing out whatever contentless verbiage we decide to program it to provide when recognizing an ontological statement. If it was self-aware, it would respond that it doesn't know how to analyze such questions, since it can only think methodologically, but it's been programmed by it's creator, to state ""ontological claims are meaningless and false by definition.", when such questions are raised.

"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, 02:22 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 01:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And your point is...?

That if we asked it whether ontological naturalism is true, whether physicalism is true, any other ontological belief is true, the answer would be thats it's not only meaningless but false by definition.

That isn't a point. That's repeating the hypothetical scenario's parameters.

You do realize that most people use hypotheticals to illustrate something, yes?

(20-09-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It requires no other computation on it's part other than distinguishing between ontological statements, and non-ontological statements, and spewing out whatever contentless verbiage we decide to program it to provide when recognizing an ontological statement.

Pointing out that most ontological questions are meaningless is hardly "contentless verbiage".

"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, 02:44 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 02:48 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 02:22 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That isn't a point. That's repeating the hypothetical scenario's parameters.

You do realize that most people use hypotheticals to illustrate something, yes?

The parameters are methodological not ontological. A point this computer brain would inform you of as well.

Quote:Pointing out that most ontological questions are meaningless is hardly "contentless verbiage".

What's the difference here between the computer responding it's not able to compute this question, and responding that it's meaningless and false? We can have it respond 42 if we wanted, and it would make no difference.

The real response, would be similar to responses in regards to non-ontological questions based on lack of sufficient evidence, leads him to unable to draw a conclusion. In this case it's not able to do so because the rules imposed on it, such as following the rules of scientific method. And he can't violate those rules.

And it wouldn't be most ontological questions, but all ontological questions.

"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, 03:17 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
Since this experiment and evidence and conclusion conforms to the restrictions documented as the scientific method then it is valid and cannot be rejected out of hand, if there were some issue then the claim would be rejected.

e.g. the rules of chess, the Knight must move diagonally, where x = |1| and y = |2| or where x = |2| and y = |1|.
If you move your Knight x=|1| and y=|1| that is invalid according to the rules of chess. It isn't a subjective assessment up for consensus vote. There are strict rules which are observable and measurable and verifiable. We have observed and measured that the Knight has moved x=|1|, y = |1| we have verified against the documented rules of chess that this move in invalid. This must be corrected before we can proceed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 03:41 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 05:08 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 03:17 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 02:01 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
Since this experiment and evidence and conclusion conforms to the restrictions documented as the scientific method then it is valid and cannot be rejected out of hand, if there were some issue then the claim would be rejected.

e.g. the rules of chess, the Knight must move diagonally, where x = |1| and y = |2| or where x = |2| and y = |1|.
If you move your Knight x=|1| and y=|1| that is invalid according to the rules of chess. It isn't a subjective assessment up for consensus vote. There are strict rules which are observable and measurable and verifiable. We have observed and measured that the Knight has moved x=|1|, y = |1| we have verified against the documented rules of chess that this move in invalid. This must be corrected before we can proceed.

Well, I learned the moves on chess when I was kid. I was taught when I was kid, that knights move diagonally. My brain remembers the rules from that, and subsequent times playing it, the information is stored in a way reducible to my neurochemistry.

So if I was watching people play chess, and just by looking at the movement of the knight, it corresponds to the way I was taught. If someone moved it non-diagonally while I was playing with him, I would likely just say to him hey man i saw you move the King non-diagonally, that's against the rules. I saw it and trusted my vision enough that I wouldn't have to ask others to confirm whether he did or not.

But perhaps i wasn't paying full attention to how he moved the dice, I might of just saw him move the piece non-diagonally from the side of my eye. I believe he moved it non-diagnoly, but I'm not entirely confident that I saw it. Perhaps my friend is there, and I ask him if he saw him move the King non-diagnology. If he says he did, than I accuse the other player of cheating of violating the rules of the game.

If my friends says no he didn't see it move non-diagnology, than I might say to myself that I perhaps saw it wrong, and continue the game.

If I'm confident enough in my observation, I'll likely to avoid asking second opinions, which is often the case when we clearly see something, like an object, or a movement of an object. If I'm unsure about that, I'll likely ask someone else if they saw what I saw, if we all agree, since a consensus was established, I hold that what I saw was accurate. If a doctor is unsure about a diagnosis after observing some blood work and x-rays, he might go see one of his colleagues to get his opinion, if he confirms his initial diagnosis, he'll go with it.

Perhaps the person that moved it non-diagonally, when accused of violating the rules of the game, says there are no rules of the game. So I do a google search on my phone and cite wikipedia for the official rules of the game, and he says to me that we're not playing by those rules, but by house-rules that allow the King to move non-diagnolly as well. I might have to make a concession at that point.

"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, 03:49 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 04:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
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?

Not only don't we, we cannot. Laplace's demon not only does not exist, it cannot exist.
.
(20-09-2015 01:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If not, wouldn't that mean we can never determine what is true, because our information is never perfect?

We cannot. Outside of a formal axiomatic framework where "truth" is relative to the framework. What we mean by "truth" in casual usage really means "consistent with our perceptions of reality and subject to change". I really really don't like conflating the two and try hard not to use the word "truth" casually.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-09-2015, 03:58 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 03:49 PM)GirlyMan 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?

Not only don't we, we cannot. Laplace's demon not only does not exist, it cannot exist.
.
(20-09-2015 01:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If not, wouldn't that mean we can never determine what is true, because our information is never perfect?

We cannot outside of a formal axiomatic framework where "truth" is relative to the framework. What we mean by "truth" in casual usage really means "consistent with our perceptions of reality". I really really don't like conflating the two and try hard not to use the word "truth" casually.

I would modify it slightly, the "truth", is not necessarily just consistent with my perceptions of reality, but consistent with the perceptions of reality of others like myself, for whom I have an infinity towards, who I see as inclined to think about the truth along the lines that I do.

But I would say it's much harder to argue with you, as opposed to others, since it seems you'll already concede to a variety of points I'd make already, such as truth is an illusion.

"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, 04:02 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 03:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, I learned the moves on chest when I was kid. I was taught when I was kid, that knights move diagonally. My brain remembers the rules from that, and subsequent times playing it, the information is stored in a way reducible to my neurochemistry.

Yip, but if challenged you refer to the documentation.

In the science method, all claims are challenged. They refer to the documentation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 04:09 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 04:33 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 02:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What's the difference here between the computer responding it's not able to compute this question, and responding that it's meaningless and false?

I am always amazed when theists (not you Tomasia) accuse atheists and rationalists of worshiping logic and reason when we are precisely the ones who recognize they are just tools at our disposal. Be like worshiping a hammer. In this case Tomasia you are the one worshiping (whether you realize it or not) binary-valued logic as some sort of absolute oracle. In a binary-valued logic if it cannot be demonstrably shown to be true it is assumed false. In a ternary-valued logic if it cannot be demonstrably shown to true and also cannot be demonstrably shown to false it is assumed to be "indeterminate". A 4-valued logic goes even further in that if it can be demonstrably shown to be both true and false then it is "unknown". Get off your knees in front of binary-valued logic Tomasia. There are many many multi-valued logics. Logic and reason are not absolute. They cannot be, like intrinsically. It has been proven.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-09-2015, 04:10 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Why would there be a chemical difference for your belief, whether it's true or false? If you believe something- choosing it is "true": wouldn't you receive the same cranial cocktail every time it's referenced, until you're provided information worth changing your stance (in either direction)? I don't think there are many, if any at all, theists who believe their myths while knowing them to be false; how could anyone?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: