Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-09-2015, 07:54 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 07:34 AM)Tomasia 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.

Assume one day we're able to create a very sophisticated computer like our brain, that's rational, able to process reality, and determine what is true or not, as we suppose the best human beings are, perhaps even better.

Wouldn't we say that whatever this sophisticated computer holds as true, is actually true. And that these truths can be reducible to it's circuitry? While we might not be able to tell what true or not based on neurochemistry of the human brain, we should be able to tell whats true or not based on the scan of the computers brain, correct?


No that is just going back to square one. Physical evidence is all that matters.

I have chemicals in my brain right now. They don't help. Big Grin

Did I just write that twice??? Shocking

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, 07:56 AM
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 can agree with you to a considerable degree.

If someone claimed that I believed in God for a fear of death. Perhaps we might be able to scan my brain, and see some trace of neurochemical response associated with my fear of death (if I am in fact fearful of death), in when I say I believe in God. Giving some support for that claim, though it wouldn't mean that fear of death is a reason that I believe in God, but that fear is an aspect of that belief.

Just like if we were to scan my brain when I read propositions by Dawkins, and when you read propositions by William Lane Craig, it might show traces of our affinity and distaste for these persons present when we read their propositions. While they might not be the reason why we accept or reject their propositions, they might have some role or influence in whether we do or not.

"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, 08:03 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 07:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:55 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I said nothing of the sort. You did. Now you can't back it up. You're a pathetic attention-seeking troll.

What you said is:

"Some brains are trained to evaluate certain evidence. They are authorities on their subjects... "

I'm not sure what authorities on the subject you meant, other than scientist.

It wasn't very clear to me how you meant the word "trained", but I just went ahead and borrowed it for convenience.

You also didn't ask a very clear question previously either, you left it quite open to interpretation as to what your actual question to me was. If I interpreted your question wrong, than next take make it more specific.

If some misunderstanding has arose between us, it wasn't intentional. It wasn't for the sake of getting you frustrated (trolling). I prefer you to not be frustrated.

Frustrated atheists, get me frustrated, and that just fucks up my zen.

Scientists are *educated*.
The plural of "scientist" is "scientists".
Bad English and grammar fucks up my zen.

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
20-09-2015, 08:05 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 07:54 AM)Banjo Wrote:  No that is just going back to square one. Physical evidence is all that matters.

I have chemicals in my brain right now. They don't help. Big Grin

Did I just write that twice??? Shocking

Maybe physical evidence is all that matters, perhaps it's only the mind independent world that matters. Only what's outside of my mind can be true. The problem we face is the world we're witness to, the reality we can recognize, the physical evidence we can acknowledge, is that we are trapped in our minds.

If there are some aspects of reality that can't be reduced to the 0s and 1s of our minds, that's a reality we will never be able to acknowledge or recognize, a physical piece we can neither see, nor hear, nor touch, observe, compute, etc.....

"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, 08:13 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 07:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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 can agree with you to a considerable degree.

If someone claimed that I believed in God for a fear of death. Perhaps we might be able to scan my brain, and see some trace of neurochemical response associated with my fear of death (if I am in fact fearful of death), in when I say I believe in God. Giving some support for that claim, though it wouldn't mean that fear of death is a reason that I believe in God, but that fear is an aspect of that belief.

Just like if we were to scan my brain when I read propositions by Dawkins, and when you read propositions by William Lane Craig, it might show traces of our affinity and distaste for these persons present when we read their propositions. While they might not be the reason why we accept or reject their propositions, they might have some role or influence in whether we do or not.

Humans are not machines. Here is a Ted talk I enjoy about the human brain. It is worth a watch.




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, 08:21 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 08:13 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 07:56 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  I can agree with you to a considerable degree.

If someone claimed that I believed in God for a fear of death. Perhaps we might be able to scan my brain, and see some trace of neurochemical response associated with my fear of death (if I am in fact fearful of death), in when I say I believe in God. Giving some support for that claim, though it wouldn't mean that fear of death is a reason that I believe in God, but that fear is an aspect of that belief.

Just like if we were to scan my brain when I read propositions by Dawkins, and when you read propositions by William Lane Craig, it might show traces of our affinity and distaste for these persons present when we read their propositions. While they might not be the reason why we accept or reject their propositions, they might have some role or influence in whether we do or not.

Humans are not machines. Here is a Ted talk I enjoy about the human brain. It is worth a watch.




I haven't started watching the video yet, I'm about to, but I'm sure there's plenty of folks here, like unbeliever who would disagree with you. The post you highlighted didn't use a computer or machine analogy, as some of my other ones did.

But it did imply that the mind is reducible to neurochemistry in the brain. I'm not entirely sure if you disagree with this claim or not.

"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, 08:23 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 06:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:24 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Are you not understanding or simply ignoring the answers that every has been giving you?

Huh

Is an application reducible to ones and zeros? Yes.

Does the application equate to its ones and zeros? No.

Drinking Beverage

I try and treat everyone uniquely, particularly in regards to questions where the answers are likely to be different depending on the person. I try to treat everything bucky has to say, as distinct from what you have to say. I think that's fair a way to acknowledge whatever unique disagreements, or distinctions arise among different atheists here.
...

What I meant was, you seem to repeating the same questions without taking on board the answers you've been getting.


(20-09-2015 06:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:Is an application reducible to ones and zeros? Yes.

Does the application equate to its ones and zeros? No.

If my brain is the one doing the application it does equate to one's and zeros. I'm not saying all of reality is reducible to the mind. But the mind requires reality to be reduced to it, it order for us to recognize it.

Suppose there is some application out there that's independent of the mind. It's entirely useless, gibberish, unless the dependency is established by reducing it all to ones and zeros. For Siri to recognize or make sense of any proposition I say to her, requires it to be broken down to zeroes and ones. Things that her hardware cannot break down in such a way, do not register.

I just about understood the first paragraph but then you lost me at some "application out there that's independent of the mind".

And I don't know who Siri is.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 06:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:24 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Ah! I see the piece of the puzzle that you're missing.

The mismatches are as important, or more so, than the matches.

Yes

It might be for one mind, it might not be so for the other. In fact those mismatches are what someone might refer to as "non-evidence", not to be factored when considering the truth of something, like we might do so when reading about someone's personal experience, or we might do so when reading views expressed by non-scientist in regards to science, etc.... Mismatches here for some are not important.

Nope... not understanding you. Did you see the bit in the video I posted before about the door-knobs?

Here's something else that explains in more depth what I going on about...




Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-09-2015, 08:30 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 08:13 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Humans are not machines. Here is a Ted talk I enjoy about the human brain. It is worth a watch.




I haven't started watching the video yet, I'm about to, but I'm sure there's plenty of folks here, like unbeliever who would disagree with you. The post you highlighted didn't use a computer or machine analogy, as some of my other ones did.

But it did imply that the mind is reducible to neurochemistry in the brain. I'm not entirely sure if you disagree with this claim or not.

That was your last post. That was the only reason I quoted it. DLJ's video is good. I have seen 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, 08:36 AM
RE: Chemicals in the Brain and Truth.
(20-09-2015 08:27 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(20-09-2015 06:37 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  It might be for one mind, it might not be so for the other. In fact those mismatches are what someone might refer to as "non-evidence", not to be factored when considering the truth of something, like we might do so when reading about someone's personal experience, or we might do so when reading views expressed by non-scientist in regards to science, etc.... Mismatches here for some are not important.

Nope... not understanding you. Did you see the bit in the video I posted before about the door-knobs?

Here's something else that explains in more depth what I going on about...




Watching it now, so I'll get back to you after I finish.

"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: