Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-09-2015, 12:55 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 04:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Facts don't exist outside your mind either. There not a part of the properties of any external object. My toothbrush doesn't tell me it's a fact.
OK, I see where you are going with this.
The toothbrush object exists. You can see it, you can feel it. If you had certain instruments you could objectively measure its shape and size, its weight, its position, the light frequency reflected from it, with the right equipment you objectively could work out what it is made of. All of these objective discoveries would be facts. They are discoverable by other minds within bodies with the capability of using the same equipment for discovery of the same facts that you discovered.


(27-09-2015 04:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Somebody will claim that's it a fact that Jesus was crucified under Pilate,
I have no idea how that can be objectively discovered.
Given religious text there was a supposedly a guy called Yeshua, not sure about Jesus. But even for Yeshua there isn't much supporting evidence of his existence.


(27-09-2015 04:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  My wife might ask me if these shoes go with this outfit. And I'll tell her yes. And she'll ask if I'm telling the truth, and I'll say yes as well.
That would be an opinion, much like a position on whether Jesus ever existed, but much different to an objectively discoverable fact such as the existence of a toothbrush in the bedroom.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 02:15 PM
Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 12:55 PM)Stevil Wrote:  OK, I see where you are going with this.
The toothbrush object exists.
You can see it, you can feel it.

My toothbrush is something I pick up in the morning and brush my teeth with, and that's about it. I don't look at my toothbrush and go yes this is a fact, or that it exists.

When does a toothbrush become a fact, when I see it, when I pick it up? If I use a toothbrush on my dog, who sees it and feels it on his teeth, is it a fact for him even though he lacks a language?

When does my toothbrush become a fact, only after I attach a series of propositions to it?

Quote:If you had certain instruments you could objectively measure its shape and size, its weight, its position, the light frequency reflected from it, with the right equipment you objectively could work out what it is made of. All of these objective discoveries would be

They are discoverable by other minds within bodies with the capability of using the same equipment for discovery of the same facts that you discovered.

So does it only become a fact after I measure it, and get other people to measure it as well?

Is every supposed object that appears in my visual cortex, and which produces the sensation associated with touch, a fact?

Quote:I have no idea how that can be objectively discovered.
Given religious text there was a supposedly a guy called Yeshua, not sure about Jesus. But even for Yeshua there isn't much supporting evidence of his existence.

You mean you don't know how that can be verified by your epistemology. Like a man who might say I won't believe any particular historical persons existed unless we have photographs or video evidence of him. Your bar and standards are your own subjective ones, it likely wouldn't be very good standard for historians of ancient historical figures, but then again that's not your area.

A person might ask the question in regards to what is the best explanation we can formulate given the information made available to us, where as in regards to your own epistemological belief, without a certain threshold being met, you can't draw any explanations.

Quote:That would be an opinion, much like a position on whether Jesus ever existed, but much different to an objectively discoverable fact such as the existence of a toothbrush in the bedroom.

There are no mind independent facts. Or no objectively discoverable ones either. Perhaps you have some notebook regarding Stevils criteria for historical methodology in regards to figures in the Ancient. It would likely be laughed at by historians and students of history, but you're free to hold whatever unimaginative criteria you like.

You have your own abstract picture of your life, beliefs regarding what's true and false claims are, what facts, and opinions are, what rational and irrational beliefs are, even for what accurate conclusions are in regards to peer reviewed articles you disagree with. That picture is entirely your own, a product of your inner formulations. It's the simplistic world formulated by Stevil, because Stevils likes the feeling he gets from the word "objective". Though he fails to recognize the reality he see's is through the lens of his own eyes only.

What you believe is true, provides you some emotional feedback. And it's that emotional feedback that dictates reality for you. Your thinking is just as functional as anyone else's, never acquiring some transcendence when you acquired the word rational or logical, or scientific into your vocabulary.

There are reasons these words are of high currency to you, just like that feeling you get when you believe you're thinking objectively does. You didn't choose these values yourself, they were pushed on you from a variety of factors in your life, your upbringing, your parental, and communal relationship, both childhood, and adult experiences, etc.......


If these relationship were different your beliefs would likely be different as well, and I don't mean just in terms of what they believe either.

"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
27-09-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When does a toothbrush become a fact, when I see it, when I pick it up? If I use a toothbrush on my dog, who sees it and feels it on his teeth, is it a fact for him even though he lacks a language?
As far as I understand it, facts are objectively discoverable knowledge as opposed to opinions which subjectively formed.
"Is vanilla ice cream a tasty flavour?" this is a question searching for an opinion.
"Yes it is tasty" Is an opinion and not a fact. A fact might be that in person X's opinion vanilla ice cream is tasty. You can discover this by asking person X what their opinion is. Another person can discover this same fact by asking the same question of person X.
But whether Vanilla ice cream is tasty or not is a matter of opinion. Person X tries it a declares it as tasty, person Y tries it and declares it as yuck. It is a matter of opinion because there is no objective method of discovery, the answer depends on the opinions of the observer.

Much like morality. Is it immoral to work on the week-end, some people would say yes, others would say no. There is no objective method of discovery in order to resolve the dispute.

Is it a toothbrush, in many circumstances is an objectively discoverable fact. Does it exist? Does it match the description of a toothbrush? Does it look and feel like other known toothbrushes? Do we know who the manufacturer is? Can we ask them what it is?
In some circumstances it might be an opinion though, say we find a primitive implement in an archeological dig and the consensus opinion is that it is a tooth brush.
(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When does my toothbrush become a fact, only after I attach a series of propositions to it?
No, facts exists even before they are discovered. Once they are discovered then they become known facts, before that they are as yet undiscovered facts. i.e. if we put some effort into exploration we might uncover some facts. We don't create facts, we uncover them or discover them. They are there to be found.

(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  So does it only become a fact after I measure it, and get other people to measure it as well?
They are facts beforehand and become known or discovered facts after.
(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is every supposed object that appears in my visual cortex, and which produces the sensation associated with touch, a fact?
No, illusionists are good at tricking our senses and getting us to assume incorrect things.
(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You mean you don't know how that can be verified by your epistemology. Like a man who might say I won't believe any particular historical persons existed unless we have photographs or video evidence of him.
There is a great difficulty in discovering facts of the distant past pertaining to individual people because we didn't have very good measures in place such as birth and death certificates, IRD numbers, social security numbers, dental records, DNA records etc.
Some famous people were written about by eye witnesses, some where not. Yeshua (if he existed) was not written about by any eye witnesses and yet we have accounts of what he supposedly said written decades latter by people that weren't there and people today read those accounts as if each word was meant to be where it is, and was spoken by Yeshua and had profound meaning.

(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Your bar and standards are your own subjective ones, it likely wouldn't be very good standard for historians of ancient historical figures, but then again that's not your area.
My bar of accepting things that have supporting evidence whith much higher certainty than accepting things with little to no evidence seems entirely logical.
Yes, historians it seems take pleasure in speculating, pouring over what little information is known and taking a guess and what in their opinion is likely to have happened.
I think that we have a poor track record with such things, invariably when we take such guesses we get it wrong.

(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  A person might ask the question in regards to what is the best explanation we can formulate given the information made available to us, where as in regards to your own epistemological belief, without a certain threshold being met, you can't draw any explanations.
I'm not as willing to make wild speculations. When I do speculate I tend to call it out as such rather than try to convince people I know the truth.

(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There are no mind independent facts. Or no objectively discoverable ones either. Perhaps you have some notebook regarding Stevils criteria for historical methodology in regards to figures in the Ancient. It would likely be laughed at by historians and students of history, but you're free to hold whatever unimaginative criteria you like.
Speculating about history isn't my thing, in many cases what historians come up with can be taken with a grain of salt. (you know, that was an interesting story, probably not true, but at least interesting).

(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It's the simplistic world formulated by Stevil, because Stevils likes the feeling he gets from the word "objective". Though he fails to recognize the reality he see's is through the lens of his own eyes only.
Rather than simplistic I'd say that it is the evidential based view with an attempt to filter out unsupported assumptions.
Perhaps you like the convoluted complexity that theology has come up with. I find it all unfounded, unsupported, unverifiable conjecture. But some people like that stuff.
(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  What you believe is true, provides you some emotional feedback. And it's that emotional feedback that dictates reality for you.
Ummmm, really, I get emotional about the fact that the Sun is hotter than the surface of the Earth, about the fact that electrons are smaller than protons, about the fact that we can calculate the strength of the bonds in water, about the fact that hydrogen bonding allows ionic bonds to be broken in the presence of water and thus substances dissolve.
I accept these because I get emotional about it?
I'm thinking you are a spin doctor.
(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Your thinking is just as functional as anyone else's, never acquiring some transcendence when you acquired the word rational or logical, or scientific into your vocabulary.
I'm not sure what you mean by "transcendence". My thinking is probably more evidenciary based than most especially given that most people believe in magical invisible gods. I mack less assumptions, I speculate less.
(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  There are reasons these words are of high currency to you, just like that feeling you get when you believe you're thinking objectively does. You didn't choose these values yourself, they were pushed on you from a variety of factors in your life, your upbringing, your parental, and communal relationship, both childhood, and adult experiences, etc.......
I'm a product of my genetic makeup, my physical makeup, my environmental experiences yes. Outside of that "I" don't exist.

(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  If these relationship were different your beliefs would likely be different as well, and I don't mean just in terms of what they believe either.
Sure, if I was born in India I'd likely believe in Vishnu, if I was born in Mississippi I'd likely believe in Jesus, If I was born in Saudi Arabia I'd likely believe in Allah. There is no virtue in a person based on what they believe in. It is not something to be rewarded or punished for.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
27-09-2015, 05:31 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 01:26 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Correction:
Spreadsheets are reducible to ones and zeros and are everything more than a particular arrangement of them.

Ones and zeros are 'data' only.
Spreadsheets have also context, rules, process and infrastructure.

Weeping

You couldn't be more wrong. Ones and zeroes are also instructions that make processes.

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
27-09-2015, 05:33 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 04:46 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 12:32 AM)Stevil Wrote:  I'd ask what he means when he says "truth" it's not clear to me from the statement above.
Facts exist outside of the human mind, is "truth" a human recognition of facts?

Facts don't exist outside your mind either. There not a part of the properties of any external object. My toothbrush doesn't tell me it's a fact.

It's an interpretation. It's a word you attach to some feature of that abstract image that appears in your mind, you call reality, that's a result of a variety of sensory inputs that produces them in your mind.

OK. Take a meat cleaver and chop off your hand. Is your bloody stump an interpretation or is it reality? 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
27-09-2015, 05:35 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 04:55 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 01:26 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Correction:
Spreadsheets are reducible to ones and zeros and are everything more than a particular arrangement of them.

Ones and zeros are 'data' only.
Spreadsheets have also context, rules, process and infrastructure.

Weeping

Nearly all of which is reducible to 0s and 1s, and all of which are ultimately reducible to the hardware.

It might be useful to distinguish the difference between the hardware and the software of computer in some situations, but it's doesn't change the fact that's it all reducible to its hardware.

You have it completely backwards. Facepalm

The hardware is unimportant; only the software matters. It can execute on any universal Turing machine, the hardware implementation of which is of no importance to the algorithm.

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
27-09-2015, 11:03 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 05:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 01:26 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Correction:
Spreadsheets are reducible to ones and zeros and are everything more than a particular arrangement of them.

Ones and zeros are 'data' only.
Spreadsheets have also context, rules, process and infrastructure.

Weeping

You couldn't be more wrong. Ones and zeroes are also instructions that make processes.

You know I knew that, right?

But yes, I expressed my thought irrationally.

Point taken.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-09-2015, 11:29 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 11:03 PM)DLJ Wrote:  But yes, I expressed my thought irrationally.

Welcome to my world. You'd better see a Dr!

But NOT this guy!

[Image: dr-phil.jpg]

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
28-09-2015, 06:15 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 05:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  OK. Take a meat cleaver and chop off your hand. Is your bloody stump an interpretation or is it reality? Consider

I expect it to produce a distressing sensation, and that life would be discomforting and inconvenient with a loss of my hand. I draw from a variety of subjective experience of minor cuts and bruises that I've felt, and the personal experiences of a broken leg or a limb, by me or my friends, etc., and the inconveniences that arose from them, to imagine what it would feel like if I cut off my hand, and what life would be like afterwards. Since this doesn't seem very appealing, I avoid chopping off my hand.

Did I just use the scientific method?

"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
28-09-2015, 07:00 AM (This post was last modified: 28-09-2015 07:06 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 03:12 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 02:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When does a toothbrush become a fact, when I see it, when I pick it up? If I use a toothbrush on my dog, who sees it and feels it on his teeth, is it a fact for him even though he lacks a language?
As far as I understand it, facts are objectively discoverable knowledge as opposed to opinions which subjectively formed.
"Is vanilla ice cream a tasty flavour?" this is a question searching for an opinion.
"Yes it is tasty" Is an opinion and not a fact. A fact might be that in person X's opinion vanilla ice cream is tasty. You can discover this by asking person X what their opinion is. Another person can discover this same fact by asking the same question of person X.
But whether Vanilla ice cream is tasty or not is a matter of opinion. Person X tries it a declares it as tasty, person Y tries it and declares it as yuck. It is a matter of opinion because there is no objective method of discovery, the answer depends on the opinions of the observer.

Facts do not exist in reality. A fact is not a physical property of anything. It’s a mental representation, an abstract concept. And abstractions do not exit in the real world. You seem to think that in regards to the reality outside of our minds, that every distinguishable item, is not just a physical item, but a fact. My toothbrush is not just a physical item, which has it’s uses, but a fact. My vase, which is not just a center piece, is a fact, the Bible is not just a religious book, it’s a fact…… Or are some physical items facts, and some are not? If so, is it just human animals drawing these distinctions between facts and non-facts? Or do all animals do so?

There’s no such thing as thinking objectively. You’re trapped in your mind just like everyone else. You reduce a variety of stimuli created by an external reality, into mental compositions, just like everyone else. The reality out there doesn’t speak to you in sentences, it’s not a mind trying to communicate with you, but you have to render it terms of the mind, for you everyday function, and movement. You have useful mental abstractions of reality. Your belief that you can thinking objectively, is just a fiction. You don’t get to put aside your everyday subjective view of the world, and then put on a pair of metaphorical glasses to transcend that conception, and acquire an objective view. As if you could peer the world outside of Stevil’s mind.

Quote:My bar of accepting things that have supporting evidence whith much higher certainty than accepting things with little to no evidence seems entirely logical…..Rather than simplistic I'd say that it is the evidential based view with an attempt to filter out unsupported assumptions.
Perhaps you like the convoluted complexity that theology has come up with. I find it all unfounded, unsupported, unverifiable conjecture. But some people like that stuff.
[/quote]

A man can hold that only those things which he can touch, feel, and see himself, is what he would hold as true, and that he will lack a belief in anything else. He can be entirely consistent with this. While his picture of the world would be quite shallow, we probably wouldn’t be able to accuse him of being illogical, or irrational. The only problem is a man cannot dictate how he sees the world. The world appears to him, the view he sees it from, is not a product of his choices, but the historical realities of the man himself. He can’t say to his former view that lacked these bars of acceptance, that he will no longer see the reality the way they dictated, that from now on he’ll only see a more concentrated view of reality, that meets this bar.

Where as you might believe the reality you see is a product of some subset of observations you refer to as “evidential”, “scientific”, produced by a course in physics, of biology, an objective lens you acquired later in life, this is just a sham, your own deeply held myth. Your view of the world is created primarily by your immediate experiences, by you inner subjective life, and the history of your interactions that shaped it, both personal and impersonal. More likely to be a product of your relationship with your father and mother than anything else, you relationship with your sibling and friends, and community than anything else. It didn’t arise out of some abstract musings of your own, when you’re able to get away from them. The laws of physics operating on the neurochemistry on your brain, that dictates everything else, are the historical forces that molded them to see as they do so now, at any given moment. historical forces uninterested in the accuracy of your picture of the world, interested only how you navigate your life, and histories.

What created your view, are the same things that created everybody else’s view. All you have is “Stevil’s” view of the world. Perhaps there’s somebody else across the globe with an entirely different life, who says he holds a “evidential” based view of the world, what’s unlikely to be the case is that both of you look at the world the same.

What you seem to forget, the world, the only reality you see, is the world of your own mind. You’re inner view of reality is all you have. There may be world out there, but it would had to be reduced to a series of mental abstractions, all suffering from the limitations of Stevil. You don’t have a separate subjective view of the world, and one you refer to as objective view. It’s just that subjective view. Colored and filled in by the history of your individual life.

Perhaps the appeal of believing you can think objectively, is just the appeal of the feeling of indifference. To imagine the world objectively means nothing more to you than imagine it indifferently. And when you feel indifferent, and label yourself as peering through they eyes of an objectivity you never actually possess.

Quote:Ummmm, really, I get emotional about the fact that the Sun is hotter than the surface of the Earth, about the fact that electrons are smaller than protons, about the fact that we can calculate the strength of the bonds in water, about the fact that hydrogen bonding allows ionic bonds to be broken in the presence of water and thus substances dissolve.

Sure, you acquire these stats, for the same reason my friends acquire stats of their favorite sports teams and player. It’s a just hobby you enjoy. A means of passing time. It’s likely wouldn’t make much of a difference in your own life as to whether you held these stats or not. You like certain sciences, just like my friends like video games.


Quote:Sure, if I was born in India I'd likely believe in Vishnu, if I was born in Mississippi I'd likely believe in Jesus, If I was born in Saudi Arabia I'd likely believe in Allah. There is no virtue in a person based on what they believe in. It is not something to be rewarded or punished for.

No, it wouldn’t be just that. You’re parents could just as well been atheists, but of a different of disposition than they were. You’re friends and community could all be unbelievers, but just a different sort, where your fundamental relationships are all of a different kind. Though you still wouldn’t believe in God, your overall view of the world would be different. The truth about anyone’s view of the world, is that it’s more of a creation of their most immediate surrounding than anything else. Fatherhood can have drastic effects on one’s view, marriage as well, divorce as well, one’s relationship to their father as well, one’s relationship to their mothers too, etc.. far more so then some article you might of read about the evidential based view of the world. The lines and colors of the world you see, are not created by reading about a series of scientific observations of the world, they’re created almost exclusively by the life of Stevil. We couldn’t produce another Stevil’s view of the world, by handing a man your reading list.

"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: