Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-09-2015, 10:50 PM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 08:28 AM)Octapulse Wrote:  I remember Matt Dillahaunty talking about a study that was done measuring brain function while talking about god vs talking about a fictional story vs talking about something real, and the part of the brain that was active while talking about god was the same as while talking about something fictional. Or something like that. If somebody is familiar with this study please post a link, I would like to learn more about it

That's very interesting and I'd be interested in reading that study too. It stands to reason since the believer has no alternative but to imagine his god just as the reader of Harry potter imagines the scenes and characters of Hogwarts school of wizardry.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 12:51 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 07:42 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... Is it likely that one day we may be able to just look at the scans of a person’s brain, and tell by these scans which beliefs are actually true, and which are actually false?

It would be a welcome technology. It'd end all the tiresome and expensive experimentation and observation that is currently employed to find things out. Just find two people whose beliefs about a particular nugget of knowledge are opposed, plug them into the scanner and bingo! - the one whose belief is true will instantly decide the matter. No more anxious uncertainty about whether Elvis is actually dead or not. The scanner will tell! What's the diameter of Pluto? The scanner knows! We're wasting time sitting on our asses here jabbering about this device when we should be busy developing it as fast as possible. They key to all knowledge, unlocked by the shape of a brainwave. Fantastic!

Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Airportkid's post
20-09-2015, 12:54 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 10:50 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  That's very interesting and I'd be interested in reading that study too. It stands to reason since the believer has no alternative but to imagine his god just as the reader of Harry potter imagines the scenes and characters of Hogwarts school of wizardry.

There's a video of the study on youtube somewhere. I am sure you can find it.

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
20-09-2015, 05:08 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 02:32 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(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.

Let no change the goal post here, you stated:

"Yes, in the same way that you can't tell if the phrase "the sky is blue" is true or not without looking at the sky.

In the case I'm not looking at the sky. The claim is asking me to say that a phrase is true, without looking.

"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
20-09-2015, 05:19 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 05:25 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 12:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Some brains are trained to evaluate certain evidence. They are authorities on their subjects ... and they submit their work, (which meets scientific criteria in specific ways) to scrutiny. You're attempting to create a strawman and then knock it down.

Or in other words their neural circuitry is able to evaluate and recognize certain evidence.

If we were to gather these authorities together, provided the same neural pathways are present and being used, when the say certain something is true. That it is likely to be actually true.

I can also in essence train my brain to accept whatever these authorities claim as true, to light up the unique neural pathways in my brain, that correspond to sensation of truth for me. That when they say things are true, I can accept it as true, as a result, without having to do the same evaluations. Any series of propositions they offer, all may ring true to me as a result.

The question of how to train my neural circuitry is an interesting one too.

"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
20-09-2015, 05:32 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 12:46 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Thoughts about the rules of rationality are reducible to chemical reactions. So are thoughts about the rules of hockey. This does not mean that we can tell whether or not a thought is an accurate representation of the rules of hockey without comparing it to the rules of hockey.

Yes, you did this before, so casually you don't even see the problem here. You seem to speak of "comparing it to the rules of hockey", as a mind independent thing.

The "comparing" is reducible to chemical reactions. Your mind making sense of some series of propositions, whether or not they produce a sensation that illicit in you a response that is true, is reducible to chemical reactions in the brain.

"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
20-09-2015, 05:34 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 05:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I can also in essence train my brain to accept whatever these authorities claim as true, to light up the unique neural pathways in my brain, that correspond to sensation of truth for me. That when they say things are true, I can accept it as true, as a result, without having to do the same evaluations. Any series of propositions they offer, all may ring true to me as a result.

Prove it, and tell us exactly how you go about that.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
20-09-2015, 05:35 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 05:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
The question of how to train my neural circuitry ...

Option 1:
A chair and a whip.

Option 2:

Read stuff.

In other words, upload more and more thinking-tools into your neck top.

Pattern recognition is only useful when you have the patterns to match / compare.

Thumbsup

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
20-09-2015, 05:43 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(19-09-2015 01:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, observation of a human brain does not give the answers of the universe. To find out if the Higgs bosson exists we must build a Hadron Collider and examine fundamental particles of various energies rather than examine a human brain.

This is why we document our data, rules, evidence, claims etc. So that it can be seen by many people and processed by many brains.
The scientific method is a reliable method to overcome the bias of an individual brain.

By forming a consensus of individual brains.

A scientist is merely registering whether the same things he touched, saw, felt, heard, etc... that lit up his neural circuitry in a way that corresponded to him saying to himself that it's accurate, whether his peers who touch , see, feel, hear, etc..the same things, cause their neural circuitry to light up in a way corresponding to them also saying to themselves it's accurate.

If some handful, beyond the majority here, touch, feel, hear, see, etc.. the same things, but it doesn't cause the neural pathways in their brain to light up in such a way, they would say it was inaccurate.

The handful might even argue with the majority, exchanging a series or propositions, that fail to light up those pathways associated with believing the others conclusions are accurate.

Perhaps laypersons such as ourselves, have an affinity for one group over the other. So when one group offers a series or propositions they are better able to light up our pathways, that lead us to go yes what they say is true, as opposed to the series of propositions offered by the other group.

"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
20-09-2015, 05:46 AM (This post was last modified: 20-09-2015 05:53 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 05:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-09-2015 01:51 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, observation of a human brain does not give the answers of the universe. To find out if the Higgs bosson exists we must build a Hadron Collider and examine fundamental particles of various energies rather than examine a human brain.

This is why we document our data, rules, evidence, claims etc. So that it can be seen by many people and processed by many brains.
The scientific method is a reliable method to overcome the bias of an individual brain.

By forming a consensus of individual brains.

A scientist is merely registering whether the same things he touched, saw, felt, heard, etc... that lit up his neural circuitry in a way that corresponded to him saying to himself that it's accurate, whether his peers who touch , see, feel, hear, etc..the same things, cause their neural circuitry to light up in a way corresponding to them also saying to themselves it's accurate.

If some handful, beyond the majority here, touch, feel, hear, see, etc.. the same things, but it doesn't cause the neural pathways in their brain to light up in such a way, they would say it was inaccurate.

The handful might even argue with the majority, exchanging a series or propositions, that fail to light up those pathways associated with believing the others conclusions are accurate.

Perhaps laypersons such as ourselves, have an affinity for one group over the other. So when one group offers a series or propositions they are better able to light up our pathways, that lead us to go yes what they say is true, as opposed to the series of propositions offered by the other group.

The scientific method. It works, bitch. It predicts stuff. You got something better ? Let's hear it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: