Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-09-2015, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 22-09-2015 04:44 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(22-09-2015 01:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And you'd be hard pressed to find any major branch of Christianity, familiar with Cartesian Dualism, endorsing it.

All of the ones which posit "souls" which survive the body's death are Cartesian dualists whether they realize it or not. If you postulate a soul or mind separate from the body which survives the death of the body then you are a Cartesian dualist regardless of whether you're too dim to realize it or not. Read the definition again sparky. Or did you even bother to read it or look it up yourself or just blurted out whatever bullshit came into your logically challenged mind?

Let me make it simple for you skippy. Do you believe

"The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honor of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact."

or not? If yes, you're a Cartesian dualist, if not you're not. It's a simple test.

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
22-09-2015, 09:03 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(22-09-2015 03:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 01:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And you'd be hard pressed to find any major branch of Christianity, familiar with Cartesian Dualism, endorsing it.

All of the ones which posit "souls" which survive the body's death are Cartesian dualists whether they realize it or not. If you postulate a soul or mind separate from the body which survives the death of the body then you are a Cartesian dualist regardless of whether you're too dim to realize it or not. Read the definition again sparky. Or did you even bother to read it or look it up yourself or just blurted out whatever bullshit came into your logically challenged mind?

Let me make it simple for you skippy. Do you believe

"The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honor of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact."

or not? If yes, you're a Cartesian dualist, if not you're not. It's a simple test.

There is no "simple" for Tommy-boy. He will find a way to drag you down another rabbit hole.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-09-2015, 01:48 AM (This post was last modified: 23-09-2015 03:07 AM by Tomasia.)
Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(22-09-2015 03:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 02:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I see a string of words but can't figure out what they mean.

That even your modified premise does not solve the issues with your argument.

This is not complicated.

Not taking my entire premise into account, would be akin here to changing an argument that deals with how does materialistic monism reconcile itself with intentionality, to one about how does materialistic monism reconcile itself with the existence of brains.

If you can't see the difference between these two arguments, why they are not one and the same, then that's a problem.

Let pose the problem in a simple question, rational thinking, the rules of grammar, logic etc, are rules for mental representation. They are neither physical laws, or posses a physical existence. So can I apply those rules to a physical reality outside my mind, without treating it as another mind?

I'm intentionally try to get a point across to you mind to mind. Is a physical reality outside your mind trying also to get a point across to you as well. Is it trying to convey the truth of itself to you, analogous to the way we might try to get a truth across to each other?

"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
23-09-2015, 06:18 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(23-09-2015 01:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 03:21 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  That even your modified premise does not solve the issues with your argument.

This is not complicated.

Not taking my entire premise into account, would be akin here to changing an argument that deals with how does materialistic monism reconcile itself with intentionality, to one about how does materialistic monism reconcile itself with the existence of brains.

If you can't see the difference between these two arguments, why they are not one and the same, then that's a problem.

Let pose the problem in a simple question, rational thinking, the rules of grammar, logic etc, are rules for mental representation. They are neither physical laws, or posses a physical existence. So can I apply those rules to a physical reality outside my mind, without treating it as another mind?

I'm intentionally try to get a point across to you mind to mind. Is a physical reality outside your mind trying also to get a point across to you as well. Is it trying to convey the truth of itself to you, analogous to the way we might try to get a truth across to each other?

There in this line of skeptical approach a reason to treat it as another mind or NOT as another mind. There isn't a case to make it either way if your case is it can't be made the one way. It's something you couldn't be certain of with the mental representations.

"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
23-09-2015, 07:40 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(22-09-2015 03:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 01:09 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  And you'd be hard pressed to find any major branch of Christianity, familiar with Cartesian Dualism, endorsing it.

All of the ones which posit "souls" which survive the body's death are Cartesian dualists whether they realize it or not. If you postulate a soul or mind separate from the body which survives the death of the body then you are a Cartesian dualist regardless of whether you're too dim to realize it or not. Read the definition again sparky. Or did you even bother to read it or look it up yourself or just blurted out whatever bullshit came into your logically challenged mind?

Let me make it simple for you skippy. Do you believe

"The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honor of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact."

or not? If yes, you're a Cartesian dualist, if not you're not. It's a simple test.

I don't have much of an opinion on the mind body problem, because. I’m more interested in the problem intentionality poses for the mind than anything else. I will say I am more inclined to believe they are not ontologically distinct substances, I don’t think that’s gonna change anytime soon, but I haven’t really thought too much about the objections.

But since the question of Cartesian Dualism keeps popping up between us, perhaps I should to take a brief moment to go over the distinction between a Christian and Catholic view, that contrasts Aquina’s perspective from Descrates. For one Cartesian Dualism is a mind-body thing. Aquinas dualism is body-soul thing, and the distinction between matter and form (the soul is the form an inanimate body takes, to be living human being). Aquinas views are part of a hylomorphic conception of the world, where as Cartesian Dualism arose in period with the view was abandoned by western philosophers for a mechanistic one.

Aquinas synthesizes the biblical and Aristotelian views here, where the soul is that thing that separates animate and inanimate objects. For Aquinas and Aristotle even animals and plants just by being alive have souls. But these souls die when the body dies. For Aristotle it would difficult to say that his conception of the soul and body are dualistic. And for Aquinas the problem only appears in regards to his belief in eternal life. In a conception of a resurrected life. But even in eternal life, we acquire imperishable body (1 Cor 15: 42). There’s a variety of theological, and orthodox reasons, as well as in the perspective of the biblical writers, while Aquinas view are a more faithful representation of the Christian perspective, than Descrates, but I don’t think it’s necessary.

But Aquinas Dualism, doesn’t find form in the immorality of the soul, but in regards to intentionality, the aboutness of things. In this regard it’s not so much about the mind or the body, but in regards to an external reality, discernible through the internal one of our minds, “how the mind (nous) becomes one with the object of thought. Of course this is not to say that they become materially the same thing; rather, mind and object are informed by the same eidos. Here was a conception quite different from the representational model, even though some of the things Aristotle said could be construed as supporting the latter. The basic bent of Aristotle’s model could much better be described as participational: being informed by the same eidos, the mind participates in the being of the known object, rather than simply depicting it.”

Unlike Cartesian Dualism this has not been rejected by contemporary philosophers, but a problem attempting to be worked out, in fact it’s become a difficult thing to reconcile with a naturalist picture of the word. Because intentionality pervades human life, that to reject it requires rethinking what it means to be human in quite radical ways, like Alex Rosenberg does, where physical things cannot be about stuff, not even thoughts can be about stuff.

I’ll close with a passage from Rosenberg, in which you and others are welcome to agree or disagree with it:

Quote:"“The notion that thoughts are about stuff is illusory in roughly the same way. Think of each input/output neural circuit as a single still photo. Now, put together a huge number of input/output circuits in the right way. None of them is about anything; each is just an input/output circuit firing or not. But when they act together, they “project” the illusion that there are thoughts about stuff. They do that through the behavior and the conscious experience (if any) that they together produce.

The neural circuits in the brain are much more exquisitely organized than the still photos on a 35 mm filmstrip. They are related to one another in ways that produce many outputs, behaviors of all sorts, that are beautifully adapted to their local and global environments. It’s because of the appropriateness of these outputs to specific circumstances that we credit their causes—the neural circuits—with being about those circumstances. That is the illusion: somehow neural circuits must literally be about those circumstances, carrying descriptions of them, statements about them that make the outputs appropriate to the circumstances. The cumulative output that all these millions of simple input/output circuits produce is so appropriate to the brain’s environment that we are tempted to identify a statement expressed in some language we happen to speak as what all those neurons working together must be thinking. And the subject of that statement must be what they are about. There is no such statement. It’s an illusion, a trick, like a lot of still pictures conveying the illusion of motion.

But our analogy needs a little fine-tuning. Still pictures don’t show movement. Putting them together into movies projects the illusion that there is movement by the images in them. But in the real world there is movement, and the illusion of movement in movies tracks the reality of movement in the world. However, the illusion of aboutness projected by the neurons in our brain does not match any aboutness in the world. ”

-Excerpt From: Rosenberg, Alex. “The Atheist's Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life without Illusions.” iBooks.

"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
23-09-2015, 07:49 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(23-09-2015 06:18 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(23-09-2015 01:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not taking my entire premise into account, would be akin here to changing an argument that deals with how does materialistic monism reconcile itself with intentionality, to one about how does materialistic monism reconcile itself with the existence of brains.

If you can't see the difference between these two arguments, why they are not one and the same, then that's a problem.

Let pose the problem in a simple question, rational thinking, the rules of grammar, logic etc, are rules for mental representation. They are neither physical laws, or posses a physical existence. So can I apply those rules to a physical reality outside my mind, without treating it as another mind?

I'm intentionally try to get a point across to you mind to mind. Is a physical reality outside your mind trying also to get a point across to you as well. Is it trying to convey the truth of itself to you, analogous to the way we might try to get a truth across to each other?

There in this line of skeptical approach a reason to treat it as another mind or NOT as another mind. There isn't a case to make it either way if your case is it can't be made the one way. It's something you couldn't be certain of with the mental representations.

Well I'm of the view that the truth speaks to us. That I am trying to harmonize a tune in my head, to one playing out there as well. That truth is not just an abstract concept in my head, but has an actual reality. That the mind can become one with the object of thought.

"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
23-09-2015, 08:23 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(23-09-2015 01:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Not taking my entire premise into account, would be akin here to changing an argument that deals with how does materialistic monism reconcile itself with intentionality, to one about how does materialistic monism reconcile itself with the existence of brains.

If you can't see the difference between these two arguments, why they are not one and the same, then that's a problem.

Yes, you keep saying this.

It would be much simpler for you to show how the altered premise in any way gets around the fallacies that I pointed out earlier, of course, but you can't actually do that. All you can do is sit and splutter, because whichever version of the premise you use, you run headlong into the same problem.

Your assertion is a non sequitur, whether you like it or not.

(23-09-2015 01:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let pose the problem in a simple question, rational thinking, the rules of grammar, logic etc, are rules for mental representation. They are neither physical laws, or posses a physical existence. So can I apply those rules to a physical reality outside my mind, without treating it as another mind?

Yes.

You can, for example, do the same thing with the laws of economics.

(23-09-2015 01:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I'm intentionally try to get a point across to you mind to mind.

You are not doing so very well.

(23-09-2015 07:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well I'm of the view that the truth speaks to us. That I am trying to harmonize a tune in my head, to one playing out there as well. That truth is not just an abstract concept in my head, but has an actual reality. That the mind can become one with the object of thought.

I'm glad you're having fun with this incoherence, at least.

"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
23-09-2015, 08:46 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
This might be worth a repost here -
(23-09-2015 06:37 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Here's what the feeler kicked back for whomever has interest. Have yet to parse the information, 'cause Gwynnies.
-about how your brain is not actually your friend.

[Image: ZF1ZJ4M.jpg]
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
23-09-2015, 08:55 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
"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?"


No, because your beliefs regardless of their validity/truth within your brain, are contingent upon an external reality in order for you to believe them. But an external reality is not contingent upon anyone or anything's brain.

It is like morality. What you subjectively see as moral/immoral, has no bearing on the external reality of whether others view it as moral/immoral. It is irrelevant whether or not you see it as moral/immoral to reality.

It is also like any fool's belief in a god. I believe they believe it. I believe they think it is fact. That has no bearing on reality in even the slightest way because wanting something to be true, is just wishful thinking. I wish unicorns were real and theists would stop making bad arguments for the existence of their imaginary friend. But neither are likely to ever fucking happen (except unicorns might actually evolve I guess and theists might stop making shitty arguments if all humans go extinct and theism dies with us Consider )

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-09-2015, 09:29 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(23-09-2015 07:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(22-09-2015 03:36 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Let me make it simple for you skippy. Do you believe

"The central claim of what is often called Cartesian dualism, in honor of Descartes, is that the immaterial mind and the material body, while being ontologically distinct substances, causally interact."

or not? If yes, you're a Cartesian dualist, if not you're not. It's a simple test.

I don't have much of an opinion on the mind body problem, because. I’m more interested in the problem intentionality poses for the mind than anything else. I will say I am more inclined to believe they are not ontologically distinct substances, I don’t think that’s gonna change anytime soon, but I haven’t really thought too much about the objections.

Okay good. We got that out of the way. So are you a materialist who believes everything is material? Or an idealist who believes everything is immaterial? And soul-body dualism suffers from the very same problems as mind-body dualism. How does the soul and body interact? Or don't they? If they don't then having a soul is completely irrelevant since we can never experience it.

(23-09-2015 07:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But since the question of Cartesian Dualism keeps popping up between us, ... blah blah blah blah .... wall of text .... blah blah blah ... I am an idiot who can never admit I'm wrong .... blah blah blah

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: