Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-09-2015, 02:38 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(29-09-2015 02:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Thinking rationally, means to reason according to the laws of logic, as per your previous clarification. We can conceive of a computer that thinks rationally, meaning that it follows the rules of logic. In this case the rules, are reducible to the hardware."

No. The rules in a computer simulation are reducible to the SOFTWARE.

All of which is reducible to the hardware. If I opened up a computer and asked where Microsoft word is, you’ll likely point to the harddrive. And perhaps point to other areas of hardware that allow the program to operate and function, like the ram and processor, and electrical connections. The point being the software is not irreducible, just like the mind is not irreducible.

Any claim in regards to how you think, is a claim about how your brain operates, for the same reason that we can say that mental states, are physical states.

Quote: "Is it our predisposed means of reasoning?"

Are you seriously asking if our brains are our predisposed means of "reasoning?" Yes...yes they are.


"Perhaps by learning, and training our brains to think along the lines of these rules, as a sort of habit?"

Your brain is an organ for reaction to stimulus and thought processing. It is no more a habit for your brain to think (well, in your case that seems to be unimportant) than it is for your heart to pump blood.


That functioning brains think and compute information is a given, an infant’s brain, and a cats brain does as well. And these computational capacities of the brain lead to wide array of competing beliefs, and competing pictures of reality. Unconscious and conscious aspects of our brains compute from variety of sensory inputs as well.

None of this is being argued here. The questions is in regards to a particular harnessing of our computational process, that Stevil refers to “utilizing critical thinking”, that insures only accurate propositions are held. Or what unbeliever refers to as rational thinking, thinking that follows the rules of logic. These are not descriptions of how our brains are predisposed to function, but rather beliefs about how they can be made, or molded to function in accordance to. Which in my view are all false beliefs.

"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
29-09-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
"All of which is reducible to the hardware. If I opened up a computer and asked where Microsoft word is, you’ll likely point to the harddrive. And perhaps point to other areas of hardware that allow the program to operate and function, like the ram and processor, and electrical connections. The point being the software is not irreducible, just like the mind is not irreducible.

Any claim in regards to how you think, is a claim about how your brain operates, for the same reason that we can say that mental states, are physical states."


Facepalm

Holy fucking shit. You do realize that repeating the same drivel over and over and over, doesn't make it true, right?

Microsoft Word as a program, is not the hard drive, nor does it make sense to point at the hard drive and say "there it is" unless you know absolutely nothing about how computers work.

That hard drive is a storage device that when used in conjunction with the other components of a computer, stores the information necessary to be able to operate the program "microsoft word." That hard drive contains information, not the working program.

"That functioning brains think and compute information is a given, an infant’s brain, and a cats brain does as well. And these computational capacities of the brain lead to wide array of competing beliefs, and competing pictures of reality. Unconscious and conscious aspects of our brains compute from variety of sensory inputs as well. "

And now you demonstrate an ignorance on what a brain is and what an infant's brain does.

A brain is an organ where reaction to stimulus is processed. A hard drive mimics the physical brain's storage ability.

"None of this is being argued here."

Yes, yes it is. Because you have it precisely backwards when it comes to brain to computer comparisons.

"The questions is in regards to a particular harnessing of our computational process, that Stevil refers to “utilizing critical thinking”, that insures only accurate propositions are held. Or what unbeliever refers to as rational thinking, thinking that follows the rules of logic. These are not descriptions of how our brains are predisposed to function, but rather beliefs about how they can be made, or molded to function in accordance to. Which in my view are all false beliefs."

No one gives a shit if you think they are "false beliefs." It is expected that a theist won't agree with information contra to their own idiotic theistic opinions (especially under the guise that they "are here to learn about differing opinions.")

Brains think and store information. A person's brain, through maturation and experience, can learn. Or in your case, be brainwashed. "Critical thinking" and "rational thinking" are observations and conclusions and beliefs that are congruent with reality and it is what those of us do when confronted with reality if we aren't brainwashed by supernatural and superstitious BS.

I.E., critical and rational thinking are non-emotional means of processing information that are in-line with independently verifiable, testable, and consistent information and do NOT rely upon supernature or supernatural superstitions.

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
29-09-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(29-09-2015 12:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 11:15 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Is this profit reducible to chemical impulses in your brain?

The calculation of profit in my head? Sure they are. Just like the computations of a calculator are reducible to it’s hardware.

As far as the agreed upon values attached to a certain piece or papers and and metals, and the value of the items in negotiation, those are more or less agreed upon political decisions.

Not an answer to the question asked.

Is this reducible to chemical impulses in your brain?

(29-09-2015 12:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Okay, rationality is a reasoning according to the laws of logic. And we determine if a thought is rational, if it’s consistent with a persons epistemological framework?

No. You determine if a thought is rational by comparing it to the laws of rationality. It doesn't matter what your personal epistemology of choice is.

(29-09-2015 12:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Thinking rationally, means to reason according to the laws of logic, as per your previous clarification. We can conceive of a computer that thinks rationally, meaning that it follows the rules of logic. In this case the rules, are reducible to the hardware.

No. They are reducible to the software.

You do not understand computers.

(29-09-2015 12:10 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  When it comes to human thinking, is it a part of our biological disposition to think rationally, according to the laws of logic? Is it our predisposed means of reasoning? In terms of the computer brain the rules are already a feature of it’s original programming. But what is it in regards to the human brain? Analogous to reprogramming? Perhaps by learning, and training our brains to think along the lines of these rules, as a sort of habit?

Irrelevant and incoherent.

I would repeat that you should get to the point already, but as you have already admitted elsewhere, you do not have one.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
29-09-2015, 04:27 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(29-09-2015 02:38 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 02:08 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Thinking rationally, means to reason according to the laws of logic, as per your previous clarification. We can conceive of a computer that thinks rationally, meaning that it follows the rules of logic. In this case the rules, are reducible to the hardware."

No. The rules in a computer simulation are reducible to the SOFTWARE.

All of which is reducible to the hardware.

You are simply wrong. An algorithm can be realized in any number of different hardware including pencil and paper. Are you suggesting algorithms are reducible to pencil and paper?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
29-09-2015, 04:55 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(27-09-2015 11:03 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(27-09-2015 05:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Your adoring followers may not have known. 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
29-09-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(28-09-2015 06:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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?

Not really.

There is an external reality independent of your mind.

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
29-09-2015, 05:13 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(28-09-2015 02:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 02:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  The brain is too complex for us to analise in such a way. We are incapable of plotting the next move from information taken from a scan.

To assess whether I use a critical mind one has to look at the methodology that I implement.

That's like believing you can program a methodology into your brain, that dictates how it process and computes information, by sheer will. All fiction.

you are silly. Utilizing the scientific method is precisely that; not fiction at all.

Quote:Is this methodology one of your own creation? Or one that's been predefined by others? Does it take advantage of both conscious and unconscious computations of your brain?

You belief in your critical thinking, is violation of the methodology you've used to reject morality in all it's form. The only reason you seem not to abandon this myth, is because this one matters to you.

Except it's not a myth and you have not demonstrated that it is.

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
29-09-2015, 05:15 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(28-09-2015 03:20 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:You really, really don't seem to grasp this whole "emergent behaviors" idea.

You put too much importance in it. I only like thinking in reducible terms here.

What you 'like" has no meaning except that it limits and narrows your thinking to the point of talking nonsense. 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
30-09-2015, 06:07 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(29-09-2015 04:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 02:38 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  All of which is reducible to the hardware.

You are simply wrong. An algorithm can be realized in any number of different hardware including pencil and paper. Are you suggesting algorithms are reducible to pencil and paper?

By realized you just mean drawn out. You can surely write out an algorithms on a piece of paper, if you passed it along to someone not familiar with it would look no different than those long meaningless formulas sketched out on blackboards in comedic movies.

Recognition of what these symbols on paper mean, the computation of those symbols, etc...are all reducible to the hardware. And in this case not the pencil and paper, but the brain doing these computations.

"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
30-09-2015, 06:21 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(29-09-2015 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(28-09-2015 06:15 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

Not really.

There is an external reality independent of your mind.

Sure, but if there's a reality outside your minds mental abstraction, that doesn't fit the image built up over the years in your head, you won't know it, or recognize it. It would be one that doesn't exist at all for you.

You have to presuppose that this external reality is reducible to mental abstractions, to a series of propositions and mental descriptions of it. That it's foundation are attuned to the epistemology you subscribe to.

When you I see the pictures of reality folks like you hold, it appears as a fractured and distorted image, of something missing, of something out of touch. And this doesn't seem to be a result of acknowledging a variety of scientific observations either.

And it's likely entirely the other way around for you.

"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: