|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 9, 2023 17:32:32 GMT
Few philosophers claim our knowledge may be represented as a map, where the edges of it, or the closer area near them, are made of facts or collection of info as "water is H2O" or "all metals are conductors", yet the closer to center the more chaotic and unstable the image of that map: there processes of logical or kinda rearrangements are going. We are composing the info of the center taken the results from the edge facts.
An interesting point is that a scientist – anyone who attempts to find something or to discover anything, et cetera – the one does his work by rearranging the cent also. However, in case of the falsely of his hypothesis he'd rather rejecting "the center", than "the edge". In other words, he would start look for a mistake not among the facts as "water is H2O", but among others less stable info. Also, he wouldn't reject logic or math, but rather something else.
Well, might be that this is what's happening often, however it's not what we're expecting. Any info is not so wonderful, if mistakes happen time to time here or there. Anyway, what makes some facts be less vulnerable among the others? Why we prefer some information to another? Hidden values? Maybe we believe in certain facts, and that's why we prefer it?
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Apr 16, 2023 3:44:02 GMT
I think that each person's life experiences help shape their interpretation of the world around them. According to neurologist and psychologist, our brain is always searching for patterns of familiarity, and cause and effect. An example - you see something in the distance and cannot determine what it is. As you get closer you determine that it is a piece of machinery that you have seen before. But, when you get closer you realize that it is a machine that you are totally unfamiliar with. This is your brain using what it has experienced before to explain something new. We explore new ideas by using what we currently know, which does not always produce accurate results and can be somewhat disconcerting.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 16, 2023 13:10:35 GMT
I think that each person's life experiences help shape their interpretation of the world around them. According to neurologist and psychologist, our brain is always searching for patterns of familiarity, and cause and effect. An example - you see something in the distance and cannot determine what it is. As you get closer you determine that it is a piece of machinery that you have seen before. But, when you get closer you realize that it is a machine that you are totally unfamiliar with. This is your brain using what it has experienced before to explain something new. We explore new ideas by using what we currently know, which does not always produce accurate results and can be somewhat disconcerting. Can you prove this occurs on the brain? Or is that what you were simply told, and you believe it?
Rupert Sheldrake claims to have proven that the mind connects to the body via the spine, and that the brain merely serves to cool the blood.
You do realize that all brain-theories have the implicit assumption that the soul does not exist?
Have you heard before the term "epiphenomenon"? Are you an epiphenomenon?
|
|
Neuron420
Junior Member
Posts: 77
Likes: 37
Ethnicity: Texan
Country: USA
Region: Southern United States
Location: San Antonio
Ancestry: Scots/Irish, Northern Europe, French, Northern Italian
Taxonomy: Southerner
Politics: Progressive
Religion: NONE
Relationship Status: Married
Hero: Isaac Asimov & Albert Einstein
Philosophy: Skeptical Humanist
|
Post by Neuron420 on Apr 16, 2023 20:21:14 GMT
Can you prove this occurs on the brain?
Or is that what you were simply told, and you believe it?
Errr, yea I am well known for just following the crowd... Anyways, can you prove that this doesn't happen in the brain, or are you just going with it because it fits your narrative. I don't know you, so you will have to fill me in on what your soul, brain or mouse in your pocket believes. Speaking of souls, what do souls have to do with you and your brain trying to determine the state of the world around you.
To ask me if I am an epiphenomenon is just a silly question. But yes, epiphenomenon's do exist:
"An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon12. It can be a by-product or an additional condition or symptom in the course of a disease34. The word has two senses: one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it1. In the context of mental states or processes, an epiphenomenon is a mental state or process that is an incidental byproduct of physiological events in the brain or nervous system5."
While Rupert Sheldrake's paranormal theory of morphogenic fields and morphic resonance are interesting, they are far from being proven. Yea, I am one of those people that require some evidence to even begin to agree with a hypothesis. So far he has provided zilch evidence. Fascinating subject though, and I am always open to new evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Apr 25, 2023 22:26:08 GMT
I think that each person's life experiences help shape their interpretation of the world around them. According to neurologist and psychologist, our brain is always searching for patterns of familiarity, and cause and effect. An example - you see something in the distance and cannot determine what it is. As you get closer you determine that it is a piece of machinery that you have seen before. But, when you get closer you realize that it is a machine that you are totally unfamiliar with. This is your brain using what it has experienced before to explain something new. We explore new ideas by using what we currently know, which does not always produce accurate results and can be somewhat disconcerting. As far as I know a heart beating is pulsating with a certain function or this bears have a relevant graph. If a heart has some disfunctions it may be spot from the cardiogram. So, what's the point of mine. I guess that's how I understand your point about the brains of ours (or the mind; sorry, I'm a rookie or a neophyte here, I don't know almost anything about the neuroscience). But at the same time I suspect that if patterns are necessary that this is at least partially logical. Let me explain it. If the pattern is a repeateable structure that fitted or suited for our brains /mind/, then this structure must have relevant nature for the brains to accept it; otherwise, no interaction between the brains and the structures are expected. However, structures or shapes, or forms of those patterns are what only logical as logic is sensitive to forms /by the way, it sounds quite interesting: logic is sensitive.../. Seems like the mind is dealing with forms which representations are patterns. Also as a metaphor seems like our brains do as our ears hearing waves: it receives patterns as the ears listening to music, which is also patterned or divided into sequences. Here I wanted to stop writing down, but I almost forgot about Kant, and his corners of the mind. So, following Kant each human sooner or later faces /via thinking, of course/ antinomies. The reason cannot go beyond certain contradictions, which our own brains support. As mostly people are living within that web of concepts we cannot go beyond that web, and each step further risks put us either in front of the doors of metaphysics (which is fine only if logic is enough powerful; but it's far from the truth), or stuck between the alternatives. Well, my point is that we are people who live within that conceptual structure, and trying to idealise it only what we can expect is a bunch of contradictions. As a non-believer to absoluteness of logic I prefer to aim at those alternatives, and the reality created on them. This allows me go further through the other half-metaphysical doors of doppelgangers, symmetries, identifications, reflections, and so on. Unfortunately, and this is so drastic form me, I am lazy enough. It really doesn't help me, while on the other hand my laziness may be explained and reasoned. If you would like to you can tell anything interesting about neuroscience, and about brains. There are lots of riddles in this reality. Whether or not they will be solved, to collect them is must-do. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 26, 2023 11:11:40 GMT
Can you prove this occurs on the brain? Or is that what you were simply told, and you believe it? Errr, yea I am well known for just following the crowd... Anyways, can you prove that this doesn't happen in the brain, or are you just going with it because it fits your narrative. I don't know you, so you will have to fill me in on what your soul, brain or mouse in your pocket believes. Speaking of souls, what do souls have to do with you and your brain trying to determine the state of the world around you. To ask me if I am an epiphenomenon is just a silly question. But yes, epiphenomenon's do exist: "An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon12. It can be a by-product or an additional condition or symptom in the course of a disease34. The word has two senses: one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it1. In the context of mental states or processes, an epiphenomenon is a mental state or process that is an incidental byproduct of physiological events in the brain or nervous system5."While Rupert Sheldrake's paranormal theory of morphogenic fields and morphic resonance are interesting, they are far from being proven. Yea, I am one of those people that require some evidence to even begin to agree with a hypothesis. So far he has provided zilch evidence. Fascinating subject though, and I am always open to new evidence.
Brain theory is premised on the notion that the idea of the soul is an epi-phenomenon. That all you can ever truly be is a neuron in a skull.
Those that consider the soul as the subset of body differ phenomenally form those that see the body as a mere subset of soul.
Some pretend and play along with the idea that the two paradigms work together. Its not that unifying them is a bad idea, its just that its a blind assumption.
Nevertheless its easy to prove with logic that the soul exists beyond the body.
So long as one accepts the rules of logic as being axiomatic, of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 26, 2023 18:16:49 GMT
Can you prove this occurs on the brain? Or is that what you were simply told, and you believe it? Errr, yea I am well known for just following the crowd... Anyways, can you prove that this doesn't happen in the brain, or are you just going with it because it fits your narrative. I don't know you, so you will have to fill me in on what your soul, brain or mouse in your pocket believes. Speaking of souls, what do souls have to do with you and your brain trying to determine the state of the world around you. To ask me if I am an epiphenomenon is just a silly question. But yes, epiphenomenon's do exist: "An epiphenomenon is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon12. It can be a by-product or an additional condition or symptom in the course of a disease34. The word has two senses: one that connotes known causation and one that connotes absence of causation or reservation of judgment about it1. In the context of mental states or processes, an epiphenomenon is a mental state or process that is an incidental byproduct of physiological events in the brain or nervous system5."While Rupert Sheldrake's paranormal theory of morphogenic fields and morphic resonance are interesting, they are far from being proven. Yea, I am one of those people that require some evidence to even begin to agree with a hypothesis. So far he has provided zilch evidence. Fascinating subject though, and I am always open to new evidence.
Brain theory is premised on the notion that the idea of the soul is an epi-phenomenon. That all you can ever truly be is a neuron in a skull.
Those that consider the soul as the subset of body differ phenomenally form those that see the body as a mere subset of soul.
Some pretend and play along with the idea that the two paradigms work together. Its not that unifying them is a bad idea, its just that its a blind assumption.
Nevertheless its easy to prove with logic that the soul exists beyond the body.
So long as one accepts the rules of logic as being axiomatic, of course.
And if they do not accept the laws of logic then the argument is faulty. What you are fundamentally presenting is a choice in beliefs and there is no underlying law that determines how a choice is derived other than value placement and this value placement is a choice within a choice thus leaving even value placement as ambiguous and with it the nature of choice. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 27, 2023 7:16:19 GMT
Brain theory is premised on the notion that the idea of the soul is an epi-phenomenon. That all you can ever truly be is a neuron in a skull.
Those that consider the soul as the subset of body differ phenomenally form those that see the body as a mere subset of soul.
Some pretend and play along with the idea that the two paradigms work together. Its not that unifying them is a bad idea, its just that its a blind assumption.
Nevertheless its easy to prove with logic that the soul exists beyond the body.
So long as one accepts the rules of logic as being axiomatic, of course.
And if they do not accept the laws of logic then the argument is faulty. What you are fundamentally presenting is a choice in beliefs and there is no underlying law that determines how a choice is derived other than value placement and this value placement is a choice within a choice thus leaving even value placement as ambiguous and with it the nature of choice.
Your argument itself is full of the assumption that the logic within it has value.
There are those that value precise prediction because they observe it closely, that is not belief,
and those that value the veneer and outer form which claims this, for those it is a belief,
and those too unobservant to even notice such exists.
But all your arguments against logic, can only be made
because you accept that the logic of your sentences is sensible.
That you think it is meaningful to use logical statements to refute the value of logic ... certainly at least proves that the will is free of determinism.
But then freedom may resemble chaos.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Apr 28, 2023 18:13:51 GMT
And if they do not accept the laws of logic then the argument is faulty. What you are fundamentally presenting is a choice in beliefs and there is no underlying law that determines how a choice is derived other than value placement and this value placement is a choice within a choice thus leaving even value placement as ambiguous and with it the nature of choice.
Your argument itself is full of the assumption that the logic within it has value.
There are those that value precise prediction because they observe it closely, that is not belief,
and those that value the veneer and outer form which claims this, for those it is a belief,
and those too unobservant to even notice such exists.
But all your arguments against logic, can only be made
because you accept that the logic of your sentences is sensible.
That you think it is meaningful to use logical statements to refute the value of logic ... certainly at least proves that the will is free of determinism.
But then freedom may resemble chaos.
1. My argument is an observation, it is not subject to nor disregards logic. However for the sake of argument let us say my argument is grounded in logic, under these terms it points to the fact that logic in the end is self-refuting (just like the thread where I point to the self referencing of the laws of logic points to their negation). 2. In regards to prediction: it requires a belief that all the variables present lead to a specific end, it requires a belief that all the variables present are those that are needed for the prediction to occur. In other terms prediction requires a belief that all the variables needed are present. Given the infinite number of variables we cannot make a complete prediction, only a partial prediction. 3. Logic is eventually self-negating and or results in contradiction when continually manifested, i.e. a 'reductio ad absurdum' I think is the term. 4. To use logic statements to refute the value of logic does not negate determinism as logic leads to self-negation, A leads to -A. But this is a contradiction as well for if logic is self-negating but this self negation is logical then we are left with the conclusion that reality is neither logical nor illogical. |
|
