Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-09-2015, 11:10 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(23-09-2015 08:23 AM)Unbeliever 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?

So I can apply rules that govern propositions, to a physical reality that doesn't speak?

How? Do I do it by imagining it speaking? By imagining that's it's telling me about itself?

"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, 11:14 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(23-09-2015 11:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  So I can apply rules that govern propositions, to a physical reality that doesn't speak?

Yes.

(23-09-2015 11:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  How?

Very easily.

(23-09-2015 11:10 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do I do it by imagining it speaking? By imagining that's it's telling me about itself?

By observing it and formulating the propositions thusly.

I suggest that you pick up an introductory-level textbook on logic. You seem woefully uneducated on that front.

"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, 12:01 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

In general, sure. You are clearly using a highly specific and contextual definition. There is a reason why philosophical and scientific texts expend a great deal of effort in establishing terminology. It is not just to pad word count.

(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  But I’ll define it as it pertains to this discussion...

Thank you.

(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... when i refer to something as created, or designed, I am referring to something that possessing a teleological property.

Questions: is purpose intrinsic? Can it be emergent? Is it fixed, or can it change?

(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I can provisionally grant that.

(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Question: all assignment of "created/uncreated" is thus contingent and provisional, being as it is limited by the knowledge of the one interacting with it.
(and by saying "one" I am already assuming a great deal about consciousness, no matter that you already have)

Human history is rife and littered with superseded "knowledge" of what various plants, animals, materials, locations, structures, rituals, and institutions were "obviously" given what "purpose".

(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Ah - I see a slight problem. That is pure speculation on your part. Pure speculation which is therefore - given what you literally just acknowledged about the limits of knowledge - meaningless.

What you intuit or refuse to accept does not define the universe. Do you acknowledge this precept of external reality? If so, you've got nothing.

(21-09-2015 07:46 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don’t think I said anything about the burden of proof, just about the differing standards of "sufficiency" of each individual person.

Where "sufficient" here means "taken as proven".

So no, you don't get to dance away from that one.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
25-09-2015, 03:14 PM (This post was last modified: 25-09-2015 03:21 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(23-09-2015 09:29 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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?

I'll buy a paradox for $100. That it's' all material and all immaterial. If the Catholic's can have their bread and wine, as both bread and wine, and the literal body of Christ, than why can't I? I'm serious, but I'm sort of kidding to. I never vested too much thought into the dualist questions till recently, more so out of curiosity about the various positions. I can't say any of them bother me one way or the other. If we're talking about God and some life the here after, as composed of matter than no I don't believe that.

But if we're talking about this life, than I like the greedy materialist consistency, because that seems to be the closest I can get to distorted version of story that I believe.

You ever heard that old Indian tale about the blind man and an elephant? They're all touching different parts, comparing notes, only to draw entirely different conclusions. And the here the answer: "All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned."

We're born trapped in our minds, and having to interpret some external Truth, trying to interpret it in ways that's not entirely reducible too it. We have to discern a real and concrete Truth, by means of abstractions and metaphors. One blind man says to the other man , he's figured out how to recognize what the truth is, by testable and rational means, without recognizing he's only touching it's trunk, perhaps even mistaking it for a tree. But what happens when the Truth, is not reducible to a testable and rational thing, but is stumbling block to this methodology? Perhaps then all you can say is that all we can safely ever know is the tree by these means, and these means are all we have to do so. They say those pictures formed by our lives as people, our friendship and community, and stories, and myths, in consideration of love and meaning and tragedy, those are not be factored in here.

For me as a fellow blind man, in contrast, everything matters. And there's been always this one long and overarching picture of that truth, than I can never shake off. And if it is True, than I should see traces of it in other accounts of the other blind men, a partial or distorted picture of the one True thing. And that's what I always see, at every moment of my life, even more so than before.

"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
25-09-2015, 03:40 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Tommy-boy thinks this is "The last person to post wins" thread.
No matter what anyone says about anything, he will cook up yet another inane question.

Just tell him he won, and put everyone out of their misery, FFS.

Lamo

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
25-09-2015, 04:41 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
No because the chemicals that are released or produced by thinking you are truthful would be the same as if you where actually truthful. The brain knows no difference. If the conscience was involved though, maybe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-09-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(25-09-2015 03:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Tommy-boy thinks this is "The last person to post wins" thread.
No matter what anyone says about anything, he will cook up yet another inane question.

Just tell him he won, and put everyone out of their misery, FFS.

Lamo

But, if he posts last, then doesn't that mean he wins because he "outlasted" all we heathens? 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
25-09-2015, 06:47 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(25-09-2015 04:41 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  No because the chemicals that are released or produced by thinking you are truthful would be the same as if you where actually truthful. The brain knows no difference. If the conscience was involved though, maybe.

There's no evidence for the conscience being anything more than those same chemicals.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-09-2015, 04:58 AM (This post was last modified: 26-09-2015 05:33 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
But let's continue a Physicalist argument. All mental states are reducible to physical states, all physical states are dictated by physical forces.

When our self-proclaimed rationalist are in the business of discerning what's true or not, is what they're led to believe is true, dictated by physical forces, or by rational thinking?

If the latter, is rational thinking reducible to physical forces acting on the neurochemistry of our brains?

"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
26-09-2015, 06:34 AM
Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Uh oh, someone blew a gasket trying to think. No

Clearly the "rational thinking" part of your brain chemistry is missing.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: