Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2015, 02:46 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't know. Who am I defining it for? Someone who believes that we are product of an uncreated order?

Or for someone who lacks a beliefs in both a created and uncreated order?

I don't think you understand how definitions and words work, Tomasia.

Without reasonable and coherent explanations of what you mean by those words, I can't even say. If you can't define your terms without requiring that I already accept your definitions, you're talking pure nonsense.

(21-09-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 02:09 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Hint: this is pure feels.

Hint: all sufficiencies are feels.

People accept or reject evidence. That differing standards of proof exist does not mean there is no such thing as a burden of proof. That's not the same thing, but I guess equivocation doesn't bother you at all, does it?

(21-09-2015 02:19 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  The short-form birth-certificate was not sufficient enough for birthers. The Gospels and NT writing are sufficient enough for most historians to conclude that there was a historical Jesus, but not sufficient enough for Ahistoricist and Mythicist.

Oh, look, non sequitur red herrings. Hello, non sequitur red herrings! How's the water today?

For the moment I don't particularly care what other people believe about other things. I'm asking you why you believe as you do, and whether you can coherently articulate the answers to that question. All signs so far point to 'no'.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
21-09-2015, 03:06 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The main difference in our thinking is epistemology.
My thinking is evidentiary based. I find it extremely important for idea to be supported by evidence.
There is no evidence for absolute morals so I reject it.
There is no evidence for magical gods so I reject it.
There is no evidence for a consciousness seperate from an underlying material substance so I reject it.
There is no evidence for a consciousness (seperate from and underlying material substance) being able to manipulate the material world via will power so I reject it.


Your thinking is faith and belief based. To you evidence is not so important. For you "personal experience" and an interpretation of that personal experience which is consistent with Christianity is the way to go.
You want there to be a god so you accept magic and supernatural causes
You want there to be free will so you accept morality and the unfounded proposition that a god gave humans free will.
You assume it all to be true becasue it fits your desire for the Xtian god to be real

Well that's one stupendous non-answer to a post with a variety of different questions. But okay.

Everything is important to me. My personal experiences, my introspections, my intuitions and common sense, as well as what ever the results of some scientific observations about reality are. Both theists and non-theists perspective are important to me.

Everything that leads me to believe that something is true is evidence. Where as you try and create the rules and criteria to limit what can be point you in the right direction, I don't. Learning of a person's personal experience might lead me to believe something is true, like the experience of slaves, the spirituals expressing their conditions, their sense of faith and hope, can illuminate, be a candle in the dark, directing me to what the truth is.

For you it can't. Why? because it doesn't meet the rules of the parameters you've created for yourself. And I think as a result of these parameters, you feel so obligated to adhere to, whatever picture you offer of reality remains fractured and incomplete, and out of touch. In my opinion.

What is it you feel you gain by accepting extra things as evidence instead of establishing parameters?

If you wanted to create as close to an established attempted as something objective, if you believe in and value something being objectively true, you would be for attempts to achieve that in the best way. There is no perceivable perfect way at this point. These are the intended goals of a scientific method, it's not a perfect system but tries to rely on steady recreation of the pattern and formulated with as little excess variable factors. An attempt for as close as we can get to something that holds steadily as objective as we can get.

Accepting various things that don't add up to be conformable or repeatable on a consistent basis is really more out of touch in others view. So what is "in touch" isn't really significant.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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.
My statement wasn't about you in particular but about religion in general.
Perhaps if you have never gone to church, if your parents have never indoctrinated you, then perhaps your own brainwashing is limited to what is in the bible.
http://www.openbible.info/topics/believing_in_yourself
Quote:Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths.

In general Religions encourage parents to get to their children at a young age, certain before children are able to critically think. I have seen children's books, nursery rhyms rewritten with god injected into them. It's pure brainwashing.
Religions try to break down a person's belief in themselves. They tell them that the critiques they have about god and the bible is because of their own faulty thinking. They replace that belief in the self with a belief in the church or the church representative. (dependency)
Christianity is about Jesus being the shepherd and his followers being the sheep. (dependency)
You guys are encouraged to get your regular injection of religion, regular bible study, regular rituals etc.
Even words are bastardised to have their own "religious" definition. Words are so bastardised it comes to a point where it seems like we are speaking the same language but we are actually speaking completely different languages.

But for a person that is brainwashed. Do they know it? Or is it generally the case that they don't consider themselves as brainwashed?

(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It would be hard to find any instilled fears
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bibl...-The-Lord/
Quote: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man
http://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-v...le-verses/
Quote:They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  My relationship with my own parents has in some way mirrored that of equals
What of your relationship with god and/or Jesus?
Are you guys equals?

(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The scientific method is a particular art of thinking.
No it is not. It defines constraints on how a claim must be formulated.
(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
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?
Have you ever seen a dead animal? A dead insect, a dead bird?
Something that has been dead for a couple of days or more.
It's tissue has been irreversibly damaged, much like cooking an egg, you cannot uncook a cooked egg.
Unless of course, you believe in magic!

If I told you that I prayed to the Sun that my sick child would get better and then within that very day, before the sun set, my child got better. You would likely tell me that my kid was naturally reaching that turning point anyway, they the kid would have got better because their own immune system fought off the disease.
If I told you that I prayed to the Christian god however, then well, just perhaps god answered my prayer....


(21-09-2015 07:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?
Other than "Jesus" who else has come back from the dead?
If no-one comes back from the dead and then someone tells you a tale about having seen someone coming back from the dead, do you start using critical thought, or do you just believe what they say because they are talking about "Jesus"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 03:59 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Everything is important to me.
Except for the need for demonstrable evidence.
(21-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My personal experiences, my introspections, my intuitions and common sense, as well as what ever the results of some scientific observations about reality are. Both theists and non-theists perspective are important to me.
If scientific observations where important to you then you wouldn't accept claims unless they are scientifically supported. Dualism isn't supported, absolute morality isn't supported, the existence of gods isn't supported, the ability to be dead and come back to life three days later isn't supported. Supernatural causes isn't supported, Free will isn't supported.
(21-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Everything that leads me to believe that something is true is evidence.
It seems that you have no constraints upon you. Nothing to stop you from believing whatever it is that you want to believe.

(21-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Where as you try and create the rules and criteria to limit what can be point you in the right direction
Constraints are important.
I trust the scientific method because it is objective, it relies upon observation, it includes falsifiable criteria. I understand that all these things are important, otherwise I could just believe anything.

(21-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And I think as a result of these parameters, you feel so obligated to adhere to, whatever picture you offer of reality remains fractured and incomplete, and out of touch. In my opinion.
Yes, my understanding of existence is incomplete. I don't know why there is energy and matter rather than nothing, I don't know why there is low entropy rather than high entropy. I don't know how abiogenesis occurred.
If we knew everything then we wouldn't need science and scientists. It is their task to discover as yet undisclosed knowledge.

I certainly don't think I am out of touch. I can explain human nature without needing to believe in morality. Any position out of necessity is a difficult position to hold because it assumes that you know everything so can rule out everything else accept for the thing that you claim must be the case "out of necessity". I on the other hand am happy to not know everything, I am happy to be in a position of disbelief or "unconvinced" until such time that tangible compelling evidence is presented.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 07:46 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 02:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I don't think you understand how definitions and words work, Tomasia.

Without reasonable and coherent explanations of what you mean by those words, I can't even say. If you can't define your terms without requiring that I already accept your definitions, you're talking pure nonsense.

I have no doubt you know what the word created, and uncreated means so perhaps your worry is that I might mean it differently than you would, which is understandable.

But I’ll define it as it pertains to this discussion, when i refer to something as created, or designed, I am referring to something that possessing a teleological property. As having a goal or purpose. We would say of a watch, that it was created for the sake of telling time. Telling time is the goal, telos, the purpose of the watch. Where as we might not say the same thing of a pointy rack that a porcupine scratches its back on. The rock being pointy wasn’t for the sake of the porcupine scratching it’s back. But it just so coincidently happen to be pointy, and since it just coincidently happens to be pointy, that porcupine was able to scratch it’s back on it.

If I used a watch merely as paper weight, we can say the watch is being used in a way that it was not intended for. We might not be able to say the same of a rock here.

The difference between created and uncreated in the previous post, is the difference between claiming that a mind able to be attuned in such a way to recognize what the foundation of reality is, and the existence of reality that exist in such a way that it’s foundation can be recognized by us, is intentional. Claiming it was uncreated would be akin to arguing this quality we can acquire for our minds, though not a direct product of adaptive selection, was a byproduct. And that the existence of reality able to be recognized by this quality of the mind, is just coincidental.

Quote:People accept or reject evidence. That differing standards of proof exist does not mean there is no such thing as a burden of proof. That's not the same thing, but I guess equivocation doesn't bother you at all, does it?

I don’t think I said anything about the burden of proof, just about the differing standards of "sufficiency" of each individual person.

"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, 09:20 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Claiming it was uncreated would be akin to arguing this quality we can acquire for our minds, though not a direct product of adaptive selection, was a byproduct. And that the existence of reality able to be recognized by this quality of the mind, is just coincidental.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy again.

Minds evolved. Minds which do not possess the ability to accurately interpret sensory information do not survive. Of course the only kinds of minds that we would find in this universe are ones which are suited for it. Any other kind would not survive.

"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, 09:50 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Here’s a simple question.

Is there likely to be a neurochemical distinction between the beliefs you hold as true, but are actually false, and beliefs you hold as true, and are actually true?

Is it likely that one day we may be able to just look at the scans of a person’s brain, and tell by these scans which beliefs are actually true, and which are actually false?

Why would there be? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 09:51 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
It is said there are no stupid questions.

I beg to differ. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-09-2015, 03:36 AM
Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 09:20 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Claiming it was uncreated would be akin to arguing this quality we can acquire for our minds, though not a direct product of adaptive selection, was a byproduct. And that the existence of reality able to be recognized by this quality of the mind, is just coincidental.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy again.

Minds evolved. Minds which do not possess the ability to accurately interpret sensory information do not survive. Of course the only kinds of minds that we would find in this universe are ones which are suited for it. Any other kind would not survive.

Minds that are not able to recognize the foundational truth of reality survived, in fact they are the predominant minds of all of human history.

"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
22-09-2015, 04:07 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Absolutely not, truth is dictated by outside sources from our brains and how we all interact with it.

Scanning someones brain does not tell you anything about what is going on outside of it. A person can believe rape is good all day long, but outside sources from that guys brain scans all point to it NOT being a good thing.

Chemicals in the brain may be how we interact with the world and think, with it is the outside stuff that we interact with that we need to study to determine what truth is, not brain juice.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: