Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2015, 11:19 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 09:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But would that mean in terms of rational evidentiary based thinking?

It would mean that simply believing something to be true is insufficient evidence that it is true.

To ensure, as best as possible, that these thoughts are true, one would have to devise an epistemological system by which only those things most likely true based on evidence and rational consideration are encoded into the brain as beliefs, while others NOT likely to be true are rejected and either not encoded at all, or encoded as something believed false, or uncertain, or likely-false-but-possibly-true, or so on.

In essence, one needs to devise a procedure in which reality is represented in one's neural landscape as accurately as possible, where it's fingerprint, so to speak, is laid out as faithfully and indelibly as can be.

Basing our beliefs on things most closely related to reality -- direct senses, precise measurements -- and limiting the various ways in which we know our mind can misprocess things, like confirmation bias seems to be the soundest, most reliable strategy we have. This won't be perfect, but it's the best approach we have.

We can also eliminate processes that AREN'T likely to model reality faithfully. Like, say, not basing beliefs on the authority of others that has been passed down repeatedly and hasn't been informed by reality for 60 generations and which, in all possibility, were made up to begin with and we can't confirm one way or another.

In other words, a belief's truth-value not being stored in the brain whenever the belief is, is what NECESSITATES rational, evidence-based thinking. If we could just look at any belief and know whether it is true or false without leaving our armchairs, we wouldn't need evidence or reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
19-09-2015, 11:22 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Um.... kind of.

But it's not 'just' neuro chemistry. It's also the 'neural circuits' that are made/form. Making 'patterjs'/'connections' within the brain.

Am sure some one with more knowledge might be alongvto explain better/proper.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 11:36 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 10:54 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  By and large, no on both counts. While the beliefs to be found in our brains may be recorded neurochemically, similar to words on a page (though neurons in the brain aren't exactly analogous, it's a close enough metaphor for these purposes), that wouldn't automatically make all held beliefs true. For most beliefs, one would have to check them against reality. You can write "the Earth is flat" in a book -- or believe it in your brain -- all you want, and reading the book or using the hypothetical scanning device on the brain won't inform us one way or the other whether the belief is true or false. Just that it's believed. To know whether it is true, you have to go out and CHECK. I don't think the brain stores true beliefs or false beliefs any differently unless it has some experiential, evidenciary basis (say, in a case of denial or repressed memory) has a cause to realize that they are false.

But that’s not a mind independent thing. Checking against reality, amounts to just checking to insure those neuro/electrical pathways in my brains fireup when touching, seeing, feeling, hearing a series of propositions, etc.. eliciting a sensation associated with saying to myself “ah yes that’s true”. Or you might invite someone else to do the checking, hoping that his neuro/electrical pathways light up, producing that similar end sensation corresponding to an agreement with your conclusion.

Perhaps your invite a third person as well, who reads the same series of propositions, touches, and feels the same things, but the pathways in his brain associated with things he holds as true don’t light up for him. Perhaps you all exchange a long series of propositions, commonly referred to as an argument, and these propositions seems ineffective in changing each other's minds, because of an inability to get those corresponding pathways to light up. Not only do you disagree, but find yourselves unable to reach an agreement.

"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
19-09-2015, 11:45 AM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 11:58 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 11:36 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 10:54 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  By and large, no on both counts. While the beliefs to be found in our brains may be recorded neurochemically, similar to words on a page (though neurons in the brain aren't exactly analogous, it's a close enough metaphor for these purposes), that wouldn't automatically make all held beliefs true. For most beliefs, one would have to check them against reality. You can write "the Earth is flat" in a book -- or believe it in your brain -- all you want, and reading the book or using the hypothetical scanning device on the brain won't inform us one way or the other whether the belief is true or false. Just that it's believed. To know whether it is true, you have to go out and CHECK. I don't think the brain stores true beliefs or false beliefs any differently unless it has some experiential, evidenciary basis (say, in a case of denial or repressed memory) has a cause to realize that they are false.

But that’s not a mind independent thing. Checking against reality, amounts to just checking to insure those neuro/electrical pathways in my brains fireup when touching, seeing, feeling, hearing a series of propositions, etc.. eliciting a sensation associated with saying to myself “ah yes that’s true”. Or you might invite someone else to do the checking, hoping that his neuro/electrical pathways light up, producing that similar end sensation corresponding to an agreement with your conclusion.

Perhaps your invite a third person as well, who reads the same series of propositions, touches, and feels the same things, but the pathways in his brain associated with things he holds as true don’t light up for him. Perhaps you all exchange a long series of propositions, commonly referred to as an argument, and these propositions seems ineffective in changing each other's minds, because of an inability to get those corresponding pathways to light up. Not only do you disagree, but find yourselves unable to reach an agreement.

Two points, though.

First, while processing sensory experience is not ENTIRELY mind-independent, it is not entirely mind-dependent either. Unless we're talking about the brain in a jar business, reality has some impact on the senses. (If we are talking about that, expect about a 20 paragraph essay about how it's the same damn thing.)

And second, the predictive aspect IS mind-independent, at least in the sense of the present mind. It's a prediction about what will be sensed and experienced in the future, based on current actions. A false prediction -- say, walking/flying/sailing around a "flat" earth without falling off the edge, or seeing it cast a round shadow on the moon in different eclipses at different times of night -- indicates that the previous belief was false in a way that CANNOT BE DETERMINED simply by how that false belief was encoded in the brain. There would be nothing about how that belief was stored in our neural wetwork prior to checking that would indicate that it was true or false.

(EDIT: Also, more to the point of your initial question, it would NOT be dependent on the mind being scanned, but (to the degree that it was mind-dependent at all) dependent on the mind reading the scan and then going to check.)

I'm also agreeing with HoC. You seem to have been lying about this being a simple question.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
19-09-2015, 11:47 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Even if one could eventually distinguish true thoughts from false thoughts for an individual, there is nothing to be extrapolated from that as each persons brain development (circuitry) is different.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 11:55 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 10:27 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  ...
our senses. I.E. touch, taste, scent, hearing, touch. (Don't think I've missed any?)
...

You missed loads.

Of the Aristotelian 5 senses, you had two touches (randy old goat!) but no sight.

Meanwhile ... since Aristotle

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
19-09-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 11:55 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 10:27 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  ...
our senses. I.E. touch, taste, scent, hearing, touch. (Don't think I've missed any?)
...

You missed loads.

Of the Aristotelian 5 senses, you had two touches (randy old goat!) but no sight.

Meanwhile ... since Aristotle

Blush

Oopsie.

Thank'e for the learnin'. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
19-09-2015, 12:01 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 11:45 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  And second, the predictive aspect IS mind-independent, at least in the sense of the present mind. It's a prediction about what will be sensed and experienced in the future, based on current actions. A false prediction -- say, walking/flying/sailing around a "flat" earth without falling off the edge, or seeing it cast a round shadow on the moon in different eclipses at different times of night -- indicates that the previous belief was false in a way that CANNOT BE DETERMINED simply by how that false belief was encoded in the brain. There would be nothing about how that belief was stored in our neural wetwork prior to checking that would indicate that it was true or false.

I'm also agreeing with HoC. You seem to have been lying about this being a simple question.

Ah, this is missing something.

When I initially held that false belief, it was prior to those later experiences of not falling off the edge, or seeing a round shadow on the moon. A variety of conscious and perhaps unconscious experiences, observations, etc.. fired those earlier neurochemical reactions, that arose that sensation that it was true. A later experience of seeing a shadow, or not falling of an edge when sailing, send another series of neurochemical reactions in my brain, that arose a sensation that my earlier beliefs were wrong, and that the world is round is true.

"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
19-09-2015, 12:06 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 12:22 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 11:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Even if one could eventually distinguish true thoughts from false thoughts for an individual, there is nothing to be extrapolated from that as each persons brain development (circuitry) is different.

Drinking Beverage

But wouldn't that mean all thinking is subjective? That there's no such thing as objective thought. Since our circuitry is different, the way even folks who might consider themselves rationalist, process whats true or not, may likely be an individual affair, though they label it the same. This seems to be true in my experience.

Trying to get to DLJ to accept something as true, might be on all together different affair than trying to get CHAS to accept something as true, because of differences in circuitry.

"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
19-09-2015, 12:21 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 12:06 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 11:47 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Even if one could eventually distinguish true thoughts from false thoughts for an individual, there is nothing to be extrapolated from that as each persons brain development (circuitry) is different.

Drinking Beverage

But wouldn't that mean all thinking is subjective? That there's no such thing as objective thought. Since our circuitry is different, the way even folks who might consider themselves rationalist, process whats true or not, may likely be an individual affair, though they label it the same. This seems to be true in my experience.

Trying get to DLJ to accept something as true, might be on all together different affair than trying to get CHAS to accept something as true, because of differences in circuitry.

Non sequitur.

Yes. By definition, thought is first person ... therefore subjective.

But irrespective of each person's brain development, the acceptance (or otherwise) of anything has little or nothing to do with the hardware or the operation system or even the applications that are running (i.e. the English language app) it's more to do with the memory i.e. stored patterns and pattern recognition.

These thoughts work at the 'intentional' level not the 'physical' level

Smile

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: