Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 04:30 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 03:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 03:49 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Not only don't we, we cannot. Laplace's demon not only does not exist, it cannot exist.
.

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.

I think you meant affinity. The consensus bit I thought was taken care of in "our perceptions of reality" but I am happy to further qualify it with "consistent with our consensus perceptions of reality".

(20-09-2015 03:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I did say that but what I really meant is that "absolute truth" is an uninformed delusion. "Truth" on the other hand is not illusory or delusional so much as relative.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
20-09-2015, 04:37 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 also was breastfed.

(20-09-2015 03:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So if was watching people play chest, ...

I too like to watch people playing with boobies and motor boats. Big Grin

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 04:43 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 02:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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?

One means "I don't know the answer", while the other means "this is a nonsense question, and its answer must therefore be 'false' in every meaningful sense of the word".

As ontological propositions such as idealism, dualism, solipsism, and so forth fall under the latter category, it's a rather important distinction to make.

(20-09-2015 03:15 PM)Free Wrote:  And it wouldn't be most ontological questions, but all ontological questions.

No. "The universe is material in nature", for example, is true. This is why I said the vast majority of ontological questions are silly and nonsensical.

It just happens that those ontological questions which are not nonsensical happen to be so trivial that we can essentially ignore them at this point.

"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, 05:03 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 05:06 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 04:02 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Yip, but if challenged you refer to the documentation.

In the science method, all claims are challenged. They refer to the documentation.

Sure, and in this case I would also hold that the propositions in the document outlines the kings movement in them game of chess, leaves no room for interpretation, and that anyone reading easily understands them. Pretty much everyone's neuro-chemical response when reading this document, would correspond to recognition that Kings can only move diagonally according to the rules outlined in the document.

But as any of us should be aware, even what seems like a simple proposition can create ambiguities, or lack agreement on what's meant by them. Even the meanings of laws, get argued by lawyers, and politicians, and people. Even what the meaning of separation of church and state is, and which instances actually violate this rule, are argued, and not always clear. Even the meaning of a single word, get argued to the point of exhaustion here, with little agreement by the end of it, such as the meaning of a fluke, an accident, evidence, etc....

While chess is a game with official rules. Thinking isn't. The rules that govern our thinking, which we're perhaps never entirely aware of are, are unique to each individual person. The way a person with Aspergers, or Autism thinks through a question or a problem, is probably quite different than I do.

His mind might be able to make sense of certain concepts better than I do, but that's not because he subscribes to some rule, but because the way his brain is predisposed to, by his condition.

I don't think of my thought process, and wonder whether it complies to the rules of some document you might cite, defining what the rules of thinking ought be, to be accurate. And I'm doubtful that anyone really does. In most cases it seems they already think someway, and have some vague abstract idea of what some set of rules are, and just interpret those rules as corresponding to their way of thinking, rather than the other way around.

If you ask me if I think rationally, I'd say yes I do, just like you would. But what it means for me to thinking rationally, might not be same as what it means for you to think rationally.

Perhaps we'll both cite different sources as to what it means to think rationally. Offer each other a series of competing propositions regarding it's meaning. Disagreeing all the way down.

If I were to be honest here, when some atheists such as yourself and others convey how they see the world, perhaps according to some predefined rules, or not, that world they portray seems entirely distorted, nearly unrecognizable from my own, lacking any real or meaningful introspection and self-awareness, and appears so out of touch with the reality I live and experience. It appears to me that I would require something akin to a brain injury, not necessarily to believe what you do, but to think like you do. This not true for all atheists, particularly women for some reason, and a variety of other folks here, as well as philosophers, scientist etc...

I don't doubt that a parallel conclusion is drawn about theists, by some atheists. Perhaps they also believe it would require something akin to a brain injury for them to think along the lines that I do.

As far as to whether or not my thought process corresponds to some predefined rules of yours, I'm not sure, and I'm doubtful that it is, because I don't think a thought process can be reduced to such rules, because there's likely to be much more going on behind the scenes than the person doing the thinking recognizes. We'll be more inclined to interpret the rules we favor as the way we think, rather than if they truly do or not.

As far if my thought process is reliable. I'm fairly confident about it, it's got me quite far, has allowed me to do well in a variety of different subjects in school. Allowed me to think outside the lines of my own peers, even to recognize and concede to points made by atheists, and folks who don't subscribe to my worldview. Perhaps that confidence is entirely unwarranted, but it would be pretty hard to get me to believe otherwise. The neural pathways in my brain are unlikely to light up to get me to, blame it on my circuitry.

"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, 05:14 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 04:25 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I did say that but what I really meant is that "absolute truth" is an uninformed delusion. "Truth" on the other hand is not illusory or delusional so much as relative.

Relative to our individual perceptions of reality?

"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, 05:55 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 06:12 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 04:43 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  One means "I don't know the answer", while the other means "this is a nonsense question, and its answer must therefore be 'false' in every meaningful sense of the word".

Actually the distinction is between “I don’t know the answer”, and “I can’t compute the question”.

I might ask you a question, you might not be able to register or compute it, that doesn’t necessarily mean my question or the answer to it is actually meaningless, or false. It might just mean your mind is not able to register it, to be able to answer it one way or the other.

Quote:As ontological propositions such as idealism, dualism, solipsism, and so forth fall under the latter category, it's a rather important distinction to make.

It’s interesting that you only highlighted those ontological propositions that you disagree with.

We can add monism, and physciallism to the mix as well. The computerized brain would not be able compute the question, beyond recognizing that it’s an ontological proposition. Since the rules that govern his thought process require it to comply to the rules of the scientific method, he is not able to register a response to ontological propositions of any sort. Even the ones you might be included to hold, such as whether monism is true.

Quote:No. "The universe is material in nature", for example, is true. This is why I said the vast majority of ontological questions are silly and nonsensical.

It just happens that those ontological questions which are not nonsensical happen to be so trivial that we can essentially ignore them at this point.

How do you determine that it’s true? It’s not by the scientific method. Because the scientific method just presupposes methodological naturalism, not ontological naturalism.

The scientific method doesn’t require me to believe the universe is purely material in nature, it just requires that I offer explanations that are materialistic explanations. It just requires me to think of what the best materialistic explanation I can provide would be, and not hold that the best materialistic explanation I can think of are better than any non-materialistic explanations offered.

It’s the distinction between methodological naturalism, and ontological naturalism. It’s the difference between thinking what would I believe if I was an atheists, as opposed to believing that atheism is true. And the reason why there are plenty of capable scientist who are theists.

It's the difference between recognizing the form of reality that transpires from a methodological process, and a belief that reality itself is reducible in it's entirety to that methodological process that I apply to it. It's the difference between getting my mind attuned to a certain way of thinking, and a belief that reality itself hums the same exact tune. There might be some teleological implications if this belief were in fact true, but that's sort of besides the point for now.

"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, 06:11 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 07:03 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 05:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I might ask you a question, you might not be able to register or compute it, that doesn’t necessarily mean my question or the answer to it is actually meaningless, or false. It might just mean your mind is not able to register it, to be able to answer it one way or the other.

This is not, however, the case with ontological questions.

(20-09-2015 05:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:As ontological propositions such as idealism, dualism, solipsism, and so forth fall under the latter category, it's a rather important distinction to make.

It’s interesting that you only highlighted those ontological propositions that you disagree with.

Of course. I disagree with them because they are incoherent and meaningless.

(20-09-2015 05:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We can add monism, and physciallism to the mix as well.

We really can't.

(20-09-2015 05:55 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  How do you determine that it’s true?

By definition.

The universe behaves in all respects exactly as though it is material in nature. Therefore, it is material in nature. All opposing ontological positions are nonsensical; the universe does not behave in any way as if they are true, so the distinction is meaningless and the concept may be regarded as false.

"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
20-09-2015, 06:58 PM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 10:58 PM by Stevil.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 05:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  While chess is a game with official rules. Thinking isn't.
I wasn't talking about the art of thinking.
I was talking about use of a method such as the scientific method.
You rightly pointed out that each of our thinking could be different, could be faulty, etc.
I pointed out that if you apply a trusted method such as the scientific method then it can assist and correct your thinking. Scientific claims are not just thinking, they are documented claims and criteria and include references to rules of previous findings and claims. Everything is spelled out and is there to be challenged.
Your thinking is one thing, but when you have a claim and apply the method, you must document it and show how it is built, how it takes advantage of known scientific rules etc.. The method forces you to convey your ideas within specific constraints.
(20-09-2015 05:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you ask me if I think rationally, I'd say yes I do, just like you would. But what it means for me to thinking rationally, might not be same as what it means for you to think rationally.
It is irrational to believe there is a magical being floating around observing humans and judging them on their beliefs and how they treat each other.
It is irrational to believe a human virgin gave birth (to a half human/half magical non human being)
It is irrational to believe that a human was killed and three days later came back to life.
It is irrational to believe there was a knowledgeable intelligence (made of nothing) that "existed" prior to existence and made a decision to create existence including our universe.
It is irrational to believe knowledge is possible before there is any data or existence of anything that can be interpreted as data.
It is irrational to believe that an intelligence (made of nothing) can make things happen via willing it to happen rather than manipulation of material things.
It is irrational to be afraid of invisible demons.
It is irrational to believe that you will continue to exist after death.
(20-09-2015 05:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If I were to be honest here, when some atheists such as yourself and others convey how they see the world, perhaps according to some predefined rules, or not, that world they portray seems entirely distorted, nearly unrecognizable from my own, lacking any real or meaningful introspection and self-awareness, and appears so out of touch with the reality I live and experience.
My position is a result of a great deal of introspection and self-awareness. If I lacked these things I might think dualism is possible, I might even think it rational just to simply believe in dualism without considering I might need some kind of evidence to support such a thing.
If I lacked introspection and self-awareness I might think it rational to sacrifice virgins so that the gods don't make a volcano erupt or so that the gods don't create a drought and kill the agriculture of my country. If I lacked introspection and self-awareness then I might think it makes sense to have to believe in Jesus in order to be saved. I might ignore the fact that Jesus claims are indistinguishable from the other god claims and that picking one god over another is a random selection.
(20-09-2015 05:03 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It appears to me that I would require something akin to a brain injury, not necessarily to believe what you do, but to think like you do.
Now this is an insult isn't it?
I could consider a person to have to be somewhat dim in order to believe in magical things. Even dim-ness seems to be not enough, perhaps brain damaged would be a better term for it.
But then I recognise the serious damage that religious folk do to people. It is brain washing techniques that are used to damage the way people think. To instill fear, to create dependent relationships, to basically control other people's minds to the point they will believe crazy assertions, such as magical gods, and sin and repent and other such tripe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
20-09-2015, 10:40 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
I think the important thought to take away from this thread is that it doesn't matter. Measured performance is not reevaluated based on new knowledge of implementation.

Put it this way. Our current regard of the mind as arising from the physical structure of the brain is does not affect, much less effect, our assessment of the mind's reliability. We can study patterns of thought and ways of reasoning without asking what the underlying mechanics are. We can test the ability of a person to solve a logical puzzle, or arrive at a correct conclusion from evidence. Similarly, we can document foibles and ways the mind can become abnormal or deviate from sound thinking. Psychologists do it all the time. From this we come to an assessment of how reliable our minds are.

If (as is the consensus of the vast majority of neuroscientists, psychologists, and people in similar fields) the mind arises entirely from the operations of our physical brains, then that assessment of the reliability of our minds is perfectly valid.

If (as is the conceit of many supernaturalists) there is some sort of mind/body duality, a platonic or spiritual separation between them, then that assessment of the reliability of our minds is still perfectly valid.

If perhaps we're all just programs in the Matrix, then that assessment of the reliability of our minds is STILL perfectly valid.

That assessment of the mind's performance does not hinge on the mechanism of operation. It's black-box testing. It tells us what's happening REGARDLESS of the mechanism.

Do we need to reassess this on the basis of the mind being neurochemical, or spiritual, or whatever in nature? No. The assessment in no way depends on that.

As a metaphor, let's compare our assessment on how reliable our brains our to some performance tests of a sports car. We measure the acceleration from 0 to 60, repeat the experiment several times, note down the result of each trial, and form an assessment of the car's performance. If we then learn something we didn't know about the car's engine -- it's diesel, it's high-octane, it's a V-8, whatever -- we don't need to repeat the time trials. We've already measured its performance. That hasn't changed. It performed the way it performed, regardless of how the engine's put together. Similarly, knowing that the mind functions off of neurology does not change what we already know (or later discover independently of that fact) about how the mind functions.

(That said, it's way cool to lift up the hood and see how the engine's put together.)

ALSO THAT'S NOT HOW KINGS MOVE STEVIL AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGH! CensoredCensoredCensoredFrustyLamo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 11:00 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
You know what, all this real unreal shit becomes pointless when you injure yourself enough. Go and break 29 bones, get a ruptured kidney, hit in the nuts by a cricket ball and then cancer, and see if you think existence is ontological.

Sheesh! Big Grin

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: