Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 11:10 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:00 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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
It's a good point.

I was asking a Catholic once why a brain damaged person struggles to remember things or loses speech or whatnot based on the part of the brain that is damaged.
If their memories is part of their "mind" and not part of their brain then how come it is effected.
She came back with tripe about how somehow the damaged brain prevents the mind from outputting the memories into the physical world.
It's just obviously unverifiable assertions, made up, with no basis what so ever, just plucked out of thin air and delivered (with confidence and seriousness) as if I should take her explanation seriously.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
20-09-2015, 11:22 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:10 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 11:00 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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
It's a good point.

I was asking a Catholic once why a brain damaged person struggles to remember things or loses speech or whatnot based on the part of the brain that is damaged.
If their memories is part of their "mind" and not part of their brain then how come it is effected.
She came back with tripe about how somehow the damaged brain prevents the mind from outputting the memories into the physical world.
It's just obviously unverifiable assertions, made up, with no basis what so ever, just plucked out of thin air and delivered (with confidence and seriousness) as if I should take her explanation seriously.

How typical. Undecided

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
21-09-2015, 04:20 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:00 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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

Began the ministry of Gwynnite during five solid months of screaming toothache. Sang the tertranumericon dying on the table in the space beyond the morphine. Pain is useful for clearing the sinuses, but yeah, my existence at least is ontological. Big Grin

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
21-09-2015, 05:48 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:00 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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

I think you meant "....see if you think existence is non-material, or not merely material."

"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
21-09-2015, 07:25 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2015 07:37 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 06:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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?

No it wasn’t meant to be an insult. Though I can see how it can be interpreted that way. I’m not saying that your way of thinking is a result of something akin to a brain injury. But merely pointing out that your way of thinking is so radically different than my own. That it comes off as extremely foreign and alien, and the reason doesn’t seem to be because of atheism, or even your scientism, or moral nihilism, or a matter of what you believe.

Perhaps you’d even say to yourself that my way of thinking seems so drastically different than your own, that it would requires something quite radical akin to a brain injury to get you to think the way I do.

How would I explain this? Perhaps you think my thinking is a product of being religious. I don’t think so, in fact it’s entirely fluid to how I’ve always thought, as far as I can trace. It’s been more a process of a refining over the years, through reading stuff, and acquiring more and more information. Nothing radical occurred to change the trajectory of my thought process. It’s been a fairly steady, and in a way a mundane refining.

I do wonder if it’s the same for you. If you see the way you currently think as a nearly seamless transitioning of the way your always thought. That the way you think now is not so radically different than when you was younger. You might have taken different things into account that might have changed the things you believed, but your though process has been rather fluid from birth till now.

If so, it seems the answer for why we think differently, is perhaps a matter of different genetic makeup, if not that drastic, than perhaps a difference in our early upbringing, by factors we may or may not be entirely aware of.

Quote: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.

If that’s your hypothesis, and if you can actually formulate a means to accurately test if that’s the case here, you’d find that to not be true at all. It would be hard to find evidence of brain washing techniques that took place, even if you had a detailed and accurate history of my life. It would be hard to find any instilled fears, or any real dependent relationships with any religious leaders or figures. I couldn’t even say that I was raised in an authoritarian home. I’ve always been sort of indifferent to authority, but not necessarily disrespectful or rebellious. My relationship with my own parents has in some way mirrored that of equals (though I don’t think this was what my parents wanted), and sometimes I feel as if I’m their parents, reprimanding them for their carelessness, or managing some aspects of their affairs.

(20-09-2015 06:58 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(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.

The scientific method is a particular art of thinking. It’s a way of thinking of a reasonable hypothesis, conceptualizing a means to test it, thinking of what variables to factor in, how to interpret the results, thinking of how to document the process so that my peers can understand the hypothesis and follow the same testing methods that I followed, and reach the same conclusion, etc…. It’s a way of thinking of what evidence matters here, factoring in what evidence is reducible to my testing apparatus, etc…

It’s also a way of thinking of the objections raised by my peers, as to whether they are meaningful or not. If they are meaningful objections, I would have to conceptualize how to test for them, to factor the variables they raise. Perhaps I’ll even disagree with my peers, that more extensive testing need not be required, the results for the early test are sufficient to draw the conclusions that’s been drawn by them. Some scientist might claim that based on an accumulation of various scientific observations and tests, though not necessarily for the sake of drawing this conclusion, are sufficient enough to conclude that the Material world is all that exists, that all the sciences are in theory reducible to the laws of physics, that elimantivism is true. While others will say that these observations are insufficient to draw that conclusion. Some will even point that they will always be insufficient based on the parameters set by methodologies. And others, will look at a similar set of observations, and conclude they are sufficient enough to believe in a created order, that we’re not just a means for reality to know itself, but find ourselves living in a reality that wants us to know it.

Quote:It is irrational to believe that a human was killed and three days later came back to life.

Is it irrational to believe something based on a trust of those giving the accounts? According to you it is. According to me it isn’t. To argue if this is the case or not, you’ll likely appeal to your rule book, and cite a series of propositions that support your interpretation of what rational means, and I’m going to use another rule book, citing a series of propositions in support of my meaning. And find ourselves in inevitable standstill. Not just on the meaning of rational, but which of our rule books is the authority on the subject.

If you didn’t believe in a reality fixed by the laws of physics, would it be just as irrational to believe in the resurrection, as someone who believed in these fix laws? Was it irrational for earlier generations to believe in a geocentrism? Or is only irrational in our modern age?

Are beliefs irrational. Or is irrational a judgement regarding the basis of those beliefs, on whether or not they are consistent in relationship to the worldview a person subscribes too?

Are all wrong beliefs irrational? Or are just some wrong beliefs irrational? If so, how do we distinguish between a wrong belief and an irrational belief. Can a belief that a man once departed the red sea, just be wrong, rather than irrational?

Have you thought this distinction through before? Or are you just forming that distinction as we speak?

Quote: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.

I can also say my position is a result of a great deal of introspection and self-awareness. Can this be true for both of us? That we both gave an equal amount of introspection and self-awareness to our views and beliefs? If so, and if one of us is so drastically wrong about his beliefs, I guess that would suggest that introspection and self-awareness are not all that reliable in itself. That what leads us to be so drastically wrong, is something other than our introspective capacities, or our abilities to be self-aware.

"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
21-09-2015, 09:14 AM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2015 09:24 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 06:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  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.

Or in other words:

The universe in all respects behaves exactly as your materialistic worldview would expect it to behave. Completely unsurprising that you believe this of course.

There is more than one possibility here, reality does in fact behave exactly as your worldview would expect it to. Another one would be that you molded your thoughts of reality to conform to your worldview, and preconceived set of beliefs. You set parameters and rules to not be able to register questions of seeing it any other way. And you’re not entirely aware of the scales put over your eyes. It would be similar to the computerized brain in my scenario not being able to recognize the limitations placed upon it by its programming, and the rules it's supposed to obey.

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

By definition.

By definition or by complying to the rules imposed on my computerized brain, such following the rules of the scientific method, by conducting 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?

If it's the latter, is there an actual test published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, that starts with the hypothesis that the “materialistic worldview is true”, and devised a means to test this and show that it's true. That other scientist can look at the results of the test, and confirm that the results validate the hypothesis, that the materialistic worldview is true. Are there any problems with the parameters of the test, that leave the conclusion drawn from it as problematic?

Earlier you stated we needed perfect information to confirm something is true. Do we have perfect information to confirm the materialistic worldview is true?

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

I find very few actual claims as particularly incoherent or meaningless. I might find them wrong, and unbelievable for me, but not necessarily incoherent or meaningless. But there might be all sorts of reasons as to why I reject them. Such as my inability to test or verify whether that claim is true, perhaps because it’s infeasible to test for me, because of lack of funding, and resources, and a failed Kickstarter campaign. Perhaps because I can’t conceptualize how to properly test it, or if any particular test might be sufficient enough to draw that conclusion. Someone might say they believe in something based on personal experience, which I might not believe because I have not had a similar set of experiences, or because I find the conclusions they draw from their experiences to be inaccurate ones, but to actually test this might not be possible.

Is the meaning of incoherent and meaningless here, not so much based on your inability to understand the claim, but rather the inability to conceptualize or create a way to test the conclusion yourself?

But to return back to your original contention, of what you see as true in regards to the nature of reality: Let’s assume that it in fact is true. Materialistic Monism is the foundational truth of reality. By foundational truth, I mean that all other truths would have to be consistent with this, or they are wrong, or as you put it meaningless and by definition false.

So let’s construct a historical narrative with this in mind.

For nearly all of 200,000 years of human history, humanity has been almost entirely unaware of this foundation truth, and held beliefs and religious views that would have negated this foundational truth if true. In fact even today only a handful of our population would accept this foundational truth, primarily those who classify themselves as atheists.

The rest of humanity remains in the dark, but perhaps one day might see the light of it, if they abandoned their religious beliefs. The advent of science, in an age we call the Enlightenment, has been our newly founded candle in the dark. But to see it more clearly, we have to acquire a way of seeing that's attuned to it, that sets aside our predisposed intuitive ways of thinking, and our common sense, the short cuts our brains are predisposed to take, and accept rules which might require us to think counter-intuitively. This way we can transcend what’s referred to as the manifest image, to recognize what commonly referred to as the scientific image in all its fullness. And once seen, we can recognize the foundation truth, of Materialistic Monism, and see that it is the ultimate source of all things true and beautiful, and ugly and mundane.

You might not like some of my word choices, and perhaps see the deliberate parallel between this and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, but I do think it’s a good deal consistent with what you do in fact believe. But where as plato referred to that thing recognized outside of the cave of shadows, as the Good, the source of all things, you’ll perhaps be less likely to ascribe such values to Materialistic Monism, which you see as a true thing, but not necessarily a good or bad thing.

"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
21-09-2015, 09:17 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 11:42 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Just make whatever point you have in mind and be done with it.

For the love of God, yes, please do.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 11:33 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 09:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There is more than one possibility here, reality does in fact behave exactly as your worldview would expect it to. Another one would be that you molded your thoughts of reality to conform to your worldview, and preconceived set of beliefs. You set parameters and rules to not be able to register questions of seeing it any other way.

You can say this, but it is meaningless unless you can actually show some way in which the universe does not behave as if it is material in nature.

(21-09-2015 09:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:By definition.

By definition or by complying to the rules imposed on my computerized brain

By definition.

(21-09-2015 09:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Earlier you stated we needed perfect information to confirm something is true.

No, I didn't. I stated that it is possible to have "perfect" - meaning all necessary - information regarding certain questions.

(21-09-2015 09:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do we have perfect information to confirm the materialistic worldview is true?

At this point, yes. Unless a wizard walks out of my wall.

The only way you can assert that the universe does not behave as if it is entirely material is by invoking Russell's teapot. And that isn't actually an argument. That's just playing word games with the meaning of "perfect information" to the point where the term becomes worthless.

(21-09-2015 09:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I find very few actual claims as particularly incoherent or meaningless.

That's wonderful.

They remain incoherent and meaningless regardless of what you think.

(21-09-2015 09:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is the meaning of incoherent and meaningless here, not so much based on your inability to understand the claim, but rather the inability to conceptualize or create a way to test the conclusion yourself?

It is based on the fact that positions like solipsism and idealism rely on terms which are undefined (meaningless) and a fundamental lack of understanding of what "true" means (incoherent).

The mechanisms by which such things could operate are so vaguely defined as to be worthless, much in the same way as the idea of a soul or free will, and they are apparently indistinguishable from materialism, so there is no way to say that they are true for any meaningful definition of "true".

(21-09-2015 09:14 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  <snip>

You might not like some of my word choices, and perhaps see the deliberate parallel between this and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, but I do think it’s a good deal consistent with what you do in fact believe. But where as plato referred to that thing recognized outside of the cave of shadows, as the Good, the source of all things, you’ll perhaps be less likely to ascribe such values to Materialistic Monism, which you see as a true thing, but not necessarily a good or bad thing.

I have absolutely no idea what sort of point you are attempting to make here. As per usual, you just sort of... stop before reaching any sort of meaningful conclusion. You just throw in a reference to Plato's cave allegory, apparently apropos of nothing, and then go off on a complete tangent about how likely it is that I might subscribe to materialism given... something that you never actually state.

Do you have a point here, or are you just rambling incoherently for the sake of 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
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
21-09-2015, 12:26 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 04:20 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Sang the tertranumericon dying on the table in the space beyond the morphine.

I starred in that rodeo when my burst appendix was not diagnosed until 14 hours after I went to the ER. That wasn't pain, that was dying.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 12:29 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 11:33 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You can say this, but it is meaningless unless you can actually show some way in which the universe does not behave as if it is material in nature.

Well let’s have a little fun with this for a minute.

Any sort of intentionality, teleology in nature, anything suggestive or supportive of a creative order, as opposed to uncreated order, would by definition be immaterial.

Having minds, capable of breaking down reality to what it truly is, and the existence of reality that’s able to be broken down by such minds, is sufficient evidence of a creative order. It’s evidence not only of a truth that we can know, but a truth that wants us to know it. Intentionality exists in nature. Intentionality is immaterial by definition. Therefore the universe, and human existence isn’t solely material in nature.

What's interesting is that you’ve already conceded the observation, that you believe in a reality considerably like this. So you can’t really argue the basis of the observation, but only the conclusion being drawn from that observation.

Perhaps you’ll quibble over the terms, to avoid the question of a created or uncreated order. If you don’t avoid that question, you’ll likely find yourself in a situation, and lobbing objections that would apply to you and I both. Any reason as why you believe I shouldn’t make this conclusion, would likely be a reason for why I shouldn’t accept yours either.

But I’m sure you’ll find an inventive response, to wiggle your way out of that corner. So we’ll see.

"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: