Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-09-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 09:19 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Algorithms are processes. Running is not reducible to a pair of legs. It is the actions taken which matter.

Great analogy. Thumbsup

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
30-09-2015, 11:13 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 09:17 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Differences in opinion and education do not indicate differences in brain functionality.
(or if they do, then no two brains "function" in the same manner - cut out the equivocation and it might just be possible to have a conversation)

Quote:Not particularly. Though, naturally, no one actively thinks of themselves as misled.

I don’t think the problem resolves itself whether we play down the language or not.

While hardly any one actively thinks of themselves as misled, many do tend to think of others who don’t share their conception of reality as misled. While you might not say that those who hold a religious conception of reality are brainwashed, you would likely believe they are misled.

And see yourself as led correctly.

Where some might suggest that religious beliefs are sort of like a virus affecting the brain’s functionality, you would disagree for the most part, perhaps see it more along the lines of being misled, or holding a series of merely mistaken beliefs.

It would appear as a situation that can likely be resolved by an understanding of certain subjects, like physics, or biology, etc…. But that doesn’t seem to be particularly true, like if someone were to suggest that if I acquired an adequate degree of knowledge on these topics, I would no longer be a believer. Nor does it seem to be true that most atheists have anything more than cursory knowledge of these topics, beyond the handful who majored and have professions concentrated on these subjects.

So there’s something not even accurate about the term misled.

It’s not particularly surprising why believers, and folks like Christians who subscribe to exclusive monotheism, see those who don’t acknowledge the Truth they subscribe to as being misled, confused, in darkness, etc…. It’s is a bit odd when atheist coopt a parallel view themselves, in regards to an exclusivist view of truth. They see the truth, they acknowledge and recognize reality for what it truly is, those that don’t are misled.

But this narrative how ever you try to construct it is problematic.

One way around this coopting, is perhaps a relativist view of truth. True for you, but not necessarily true for me. In this picture no one seems to be misled, but that doesn’t seem to be a popular one, it’s less attractive, but less problematic.

"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, 11:16 AM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2015 11:19 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 09:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-09-2015 09:00 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  You think those who subscribe to religious and supernatural beliefs are brainwashed, and clearly you don't think you're brainwashed right?

To quote you: "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"

You also seem to believe absent of this brainwashing, we'd be able to thinking rationally and critically and have the capacities to recognize reality for what it truly is.

Once again, another example of you being EXPLICITLY told you are presenting a straw man, that you continue to ignore.

You are either wholly dishonest, or a fucking moron.

Or both Consider

You could always correct it though right.

Perhaps for you it's just some folks who subscribe to religious and supernatural beliefs that are brainwashed, not all of them? Though I'd be curious as to what distinguishes the two.

"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, 11:20 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 11:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-09-2015 09:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once again, another example of you being EXPLICITLY told you are presenting a straw man, that you continue to ignore.

You are either wholly dishonest, or a fucking moron.

Or both Consider

You could always correct it though right.

Perhaps for you it's just some folks who subscribe to religious and supernatural beliefs that are brainwashed, not all of them? Though I'd be curious as to what distinguishes the two.

More straw man Drinking Beverage

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
30-09-2015, 11:22 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
At what point did I equate brainwashing with "OPERATIVE DIFFERENCES" in how a religious vs. non-religious mind operates?

^that is the fucking straw man you keep poking.

Otherwise, you have made no salient points other than what you think is an "obvious truth" but you make horrible analogies and then conflate terms. Your whole thread is nonsensical and moronic.

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
30-09-2015, 11:26 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 11:22 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  At what point did I equate brainwashing with "OPERATIVE DIFFERENCES" in how a religious vs. non-religious mind operates?

^that is the fucking straw man you keep poking.

Otherwise, you have made no salient points other than what you think is an "obvious truth" but you make horrible analogies and then conflate terms. Your whole thread is nonsensical and moronic.

Okay so you wouldn't call it operative differences.

But in your view all folks who subscribe to religious or supernatural beliefs are brainwashed.

But you yourself are not brainwashed.

Is that right?

"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, 11:45 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  While hardly any one actively thinks of themselves as misled, many do tend to think of others who don’t share their conception of reality as misled. While you might not say that those who hold a religious conception of reality are brainwashed, you would likely believe they are misled.

And see yourself as led correctly.

A good education consists of how to think. Not what to think.

Protip, though: don't tell others what they believe.

(30-09-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Where some might suggest that religious beliefs are sort of like a virus affecting the brain’s functionality, you would disagree for the most part, perhaps see it more along the lines of being misled, or holding a series of merely mistaken beliefs.

Oh hi there, weasel words. "Some might suggest" indeed, eh?

Protip: don't tell others what they believe.

(30-09-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It would appear as a situation that can likely be resolved by an understanding of certain subjects, like physics, or biology, etc…. But that doesn’t seem to be particularly true, like if someone were to suggest that if I acquired an adequate degree of knowledge on these topics, I would no longer be a believer.

That is true if and only if the immediate matter in question is one with a well-established answer. It is not possible to be wrong regarding a personal belief as to the ultimate origin of the observable universe, because there is no right answer. It is eminently possible to be wrong regarding a personal belief as to the age of the Earth.

Why you insist on conflating so wildly, I wouldn't presume to guess.
(if I did, it would not be flattering)

(30-09-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Nor does it seem to be true that most atheists have anything more than cursory knowledge of these topics, beyond the handful who majored and have professions concentrated on these subjects.

While I do find the disingenuous insinuation of ignorant parroting to be ever so charming, I'll nonetheless take the opportunity to point out that comprehensive direct personal verification of the entire modern scientific corpus is an idiotic and impossible false standard to suggest. At some point one must simply defer to other authority.

(30-09-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It’s not particularly surprising why believers, and folks like Christians who subscribe to exclusive monotheism, see those who don’t acknowledge the Truth they subscribe to as being misled, confused, in darkness, etc…. It’s is a bit odd when atheist coopt a parallel view themselves, in regards to an exclusivist view of truth. They see the truth, they acknowledge and recognize reality for what it truly is, those that don’t are misled.

Assuming a consistent external reality one must evaluate models thereof as either more or less accurate. Your obsession with the word "misled" is odd but irrelevant.

Being taught falsehoods (or even truths!) rather than a means of distinguishing truths and falsehoods might perhaps qualify as being misled. This hardly applies to the explicitly unfalsifiable claims most modern religion retreats to, notwithstanding their subjective nature to begin with.

(30-09-2015 11:13 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  One way around this coopting, is perhaps a relativist view of truth. True for you, but not necessarily true for me. In this picture no one seems to be misled, but that doesn’t seem to be a popular one, it’s less attractive, but less problematic.

That certain religious dogmas are either (of themselves) true or untrue while simultaneously being subjective and unfalsifiable by no means implies that all statements are subjective and unfalsifiable.

You do not seem to be able to keep clear the disparate topics you're attempting to discuss.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
30-09-2015, 01:27 PM (This post was last modified: 30-09-2015 03:46 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 11:26 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-09-2015 11:22 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  At what point did I equate brainwashing with "OPERATIVE DIFFERENCES" in how a religious vs. non-religious mind operates?

^that is the fucking straw man you keep poking.

Otherwise, you have made no salient points other than what you think is an "obvious truth" but you make horrible analogies and then conflate terms. Your whole thread is nonsensical and moronic.

Okay so you wouldn't call it operative differences.

But in your view all folks who subscribe to religious or supernatural beliefs are brainwashed.

But you yourself are not brainwashed.

Is that right?

Did I say all religious folks or believers in super-nature are all brainwashed? No, no I fucking didn't.

I'm not brainwashed. I've a very dirty and educated mind. I've shirked my washed brain in favor of rational (consistent with reality) beliefs.

I realize that's hard for you to believe since it doesn't fit your straw man. Drinking Beverage

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
30-09-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 06:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(29-09-2015 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

That doesn't make any sense. New facts get integrated into one's view.

The ones who ignore new facts are ideologues.

Quote: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.

No, reality is reality. What I may or may not sense of it does not change reality.

And precisely what epistemology do I subscribe to? Consider

Quote: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.

What is fractured? Who are these folks like me? Consider

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

You mean that I probably see your worldview as irrational? That may be the closest to truth you have achieved here. 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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-09-2015, 05:19 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(30-09-2015 06:45 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(30-09-2015 06:30 AM)morondog Wrote:  ... But brain/computer which simply knows how to interpret symbols can only implement algorithm if given list of symbols. Sure, hardware is required to carry out algorithm, but algorithm is not dependent on hardware, nor is hardware *all* that is required.

What is your point anyway?

Well programming the hardwire would also be required. You would program it with an recognition of what any particular symbol, and program it with the rules, and computational capacities to make sense of any string of these symbols. While you can say we're programming the software here, but this is a reducible process, which corresponds in it's entirety to reconfiguring some aspect of the hardware, moving around physical parts. We can even reprogram it here, like OS updates, crafting and fine tuning it's capacities.

The analogy to the mind is, the mind comes preconfigured by it's genetics, and countless years of evolution. The purpose of which were not for the sake of recognizing reality, but navigating through it, they come preconfigured with all sorts of shortcuts, to get from point A to point B, with as little effort as needed. The computational capacities of our brain are both conscious and unconscious. And compute data from a variety of sensory inputs.

When some folks speak of themselves as utilizing critical thinking, thinking rationally, they tend not to be describing our predisposed thought process, but a particularly harnessed and fine tuned one they've acquired, in some ways by reprograming their brains. The brain that thinks fuzzy on it's own, is being reprogrammed by that same fuzzy brain, and imagines that he now thinks and sees clearly. All fiction of course, but not one these fuzzy brains can recognize.

You don't understand algorithms. Weeping

Evolution embodies an algorithm - no one programmed it.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: