Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2015, 02:32 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 11:11 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That because when I hear the proposition the sky is blue in my head, it travel through some electrical/neuro pathway in my brain that fires a sensation in me for things I label as true. It may just as well be true that when I hear the proposition God exists, Jesus rose from the Dead, the earth is flat, that it travels through the same pathway leading to the same sensation, that it's true.

Wrong, hearing and vision are processed in different areas. Also, let's say you are colorblind to blue. Does that get you any closer to the reality that the sky is blue? The god/jesus things are all nonfalsifiable and therefore are not the same thing as how we can verify that the earth is roundish and not flat. Furthermore, if the person who is telling you something is mistaken or outright lying? Does that automatically become true? Of course not. We can trust our senses fairly well because they have demonstrated their reliability time and time again. Can they be fooled? Yes. However, for the most part, they function well. Couple this to sharing of experiences with others, and it becomes clear who can and can't see the color blue.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
19-09-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 02:32 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Wrong, hearing and vision are processed in different areas. Also, let's say you are colorblind to blue. Does that get you any closer to the reality that the sky is blue? The god/jesus things are all nonfalsifiable and therefore are not the same thing as how we can verify that the earth is roundish and not flat.
A person could document that the sky is blue.
Their document could include their personal experience that they perceive the colour of the sky to be blue when looking up at it from the Earth's surface on a clear day.
They could back that up by including spectral readings from an instrument capable of
analysing the frequencies and luminosities of the observed light.

Other people having read this document could recreate these experiments and record the readings from their equipment from their location. These could concur or differ from the original findings.

A scientist could come up with a hypothesis on why the sky appear blue. Other experiments could be developed to test this hypothesis. Hypothesis and findings documented and the recreated and assessed by independent individuals or groups.

All along the way our collective knowledge improves.



On the other hand a person goes onto a street corner and yells out his assertion that Jesus rose from the dead. A person hears this assertion then goes to a different street corner and starts yelling out this assertion, propagating an undocumented, unfalsifiable, unverified claim. All along the way our collective knowledge remains stagnant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
19-09-2015, 02:56 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 02:45 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 02:32 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Wrong, hearing and vision are processed in different areas. Also, let's say you are colorblind to blue. Does that get you any closer to the reality that the sky is blue? The god/jesus things are all nonfalsifiable and therefore are not the same thing as how we can verify that the earth is roundish and not flat.
A person could document that the sky is blue.
Their document could include their personal experience that they perceive the colour of the sky to be blue when looking up at it from the Earth's surface on a clear day.
They could back that up by including spectral readings from an instrument capable of
analysing the frequencies and luminosities of the observed light.

Other people having read this document could recreate these experiments and record the readings from their equipment from their location. These could concur or differ from the original findings.

A scientist could come up with a hypothesis on why the sky appear blue. Other experiments could be developed to test this hypothesis. Hypothesis and findings documented and the recreated and assessed by independent individuals or groups.

All along the way our collective knowledge improves.



On the other hand a person goes onto a street corner and yells out his assertion that Jesus rose from the dead. A person hears this assertion then goes to a different street corner and starts yelling out this assertion, propagating an undocumented, unfalsifiable, unverified claim. All along the way our collective knowledge remains stagnant.

I see what you are saying it but I was writing it from the standpoint of his idea of a brain scan where the ideas stay withing the observer.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
19-09-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 02:32 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Wrong, hearing and vision are processed in different areas.

Interestingly, I just started working with a world renowned researcher in tactile systems, Dr. Anil Raj. He posits that the only distinction between tactile and auditory stimulus is one of frequency. When you think about it, even hearing is tactile in the sense that it is tactile in the ear with the cilia and eardrum. He has taught blind people to "see" using tactile stimulus and deaf people to "hear" using tactile stimulus.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
19-09-2015, 03:30 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 03:33 PM by The Organic Chemist.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 03:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 02:32 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Wrong, hearing and vision are processed in different areas.

Interestingly, I just started working with a world renowned researcher in tactile systems, Dr. Anil Raj. He posits that the only distinction between tactile and auditory stimulus is one of frequency. When you think about it, even hearing is tactile in the sense that it is tactile in the ear with the cilia and eardrum. He has taught blind people to "see" using tactile stimulus and deaf people to "hear" using tactile stimulus.

Occipital lobe.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...GelR_av1nw

Auditory cortex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_cortex

They are close. Maybe some people's are more intertwined than others. Interesting stuff.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
19-09-2015, 03:32 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 01:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 12:57 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  If brains were built like computers -- all exactly the same -- you could hook up a brain and get 100 percent "yes" or "no" - "truth" or "lie" outcomes.....

Brains are computers. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of this statement, but brains are computers in the absolute most literal sense.

The brain is a Turing-complete device. Any Turing-complete device is, by definition, a computer. There are a hell of a lot of delicate fiddly bits in there, because brains are really a bit of a mess when you get right down to it, so it's often difficult to track a single computational process completely, but the brain is very much a computer.

They are -- but -- the brain is much more adaptable than a computer.

A computer is, what it is, and will always be what it is. (until it quits working of course) .. A brain is more plastic, and capable of fixing itself under some conditions. A computer is always going to come up with the same answers - because it doesn't change as conditions change. A brain -- especially a human one - as you noted - is a bit of a mess --- and it will "usually" come up with the same answers to questions -- but not always....

Sometimes 2 plus 2 equals four. Other times it equals a grapefruit stuffed up a rhino's nose......

Ya just never know.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 03:46 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 03:50 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 03:30 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 03:14 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Interestingly, I just started working with a world renowned researcher in tactile systems, Dr. Anil Raj. He posits that the only distinction between tactile and auditory stimulus is one of frequency. When you think about it, even hearing is tactile in the sense that it is tactile in the ear with the cilia and eardrum. He has taught blind people to "see" using tactile stimulus and deaf people to "hear" using tactile stimulus.

Occipital lobe.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...GelR_av1nw

Auditory cortex.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_cortex

They are close. Maybe some people's are more intertwined than others. Interesting stuff.

He's not claiming that the visual cortex and auditory cortex are different. I think he's making the claim that tactile and auditory stimulus are processed similarly.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-09-2015, 05:08 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
I'd speculate that it's possible there might be chemical differences in things our brain perceives to be beyond a doubt true, reasonably true, probably true, and possibly true. Perhaps it will be the easiest to find out which beliefs are in the denial category (thoughts which violate some taboo, such as a confused reaction to the statement that god is good, where the person states agreement with the belief, but the chemicals indicate that the emotion generated by that statement is fear rather than happiness).

I don't think that there is any way to detect what beliefs are objectively true by studying brain chemicals. At best we might be able to detect what beliefs are associated with the least ambivalence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like julep's post
19-09-2015, 05:12 PM (This post was last modified: 19-09-2015 06:08 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 05:08 PM)julep Wrote:  I'd speculate that it's possible there might be chemical differences in things our brain perceives to be beyond a doubt true, reasonably true, probably true, and possibly true. Perhaps it will be the easiest to find out which beliefs are in the denial category (thoughts which violate some taboo, such as a confused reaction to the statement that god is good, where the person states agreement with the belief, but the chemicals indicate that the emotion generated by that statement is fear rather than happiness).

I don't think that there is any way to detect what beliefs are objectively true by studying brain chemicals. At best we might be able to detect what beliefs are associated with the least ambivalence.

I think you are right. We are likely to be able to discern degrees of belief with FMRIs and even more sophiticated technology. We will likely be able to determine whether someone is lying or not. The phrase "objective truth" is nonsense. It's not that it doesn't exist, it's that it can't exist. cf. this dude:
[Image: Kurt_goumldel.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
19-09-2015, 05:17 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 03:32 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 01:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Brains are computers. I'm not sure what you mean by the rest of this statement, but brains are computers in the absolute most literal sense.

The brain is a Turing-complete device. Any Turing-complete device is, by definition, a computer. There are a hell of a lot of delicate fiddly bits in there, because brains are really a bit of a mess when you get right down to it, so it's often difficult to track a single computational process completely, but the brain is very much a computer.

They are -- but -- the brain is much more adaptable than a computer.

No. The brain is more adaptable, in certain specialized areas, than the types of computers we use today.

It is still very much a computer.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: