Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 6:59 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Another food for thought... what is reason from a neural point of view? Without reason the brain just passively as it were statistically analyses whatever is put in front of it and extracts patterns and relationships. Whereas it appears to me that reason has the same goal, but deliberately/willfully. So for instance the passive system might be presented (in the normal course of events) with events ABCD and JKLM, each with repeated variations on the scene... so:

ABCD
ABDE
BCDE
BFGH

Leading to a statistical extraction of B as the first principal (ie stable) component (but other patterns as well probably). Then if we apply the same relative relationships to letters re the second group of letters:

JKLM
JKMN
KLMN
KOPQ

Leading to the extraction of K and other patterns. But if never these two events meet in the normal course of events, then any uber-patterns are lost. But reason allows you to willfully bring together events ABCD and JKLM and present them to the network simultaneously, thus allowing the extra pattern to be extracted, namely that the same letter shift is used in both.

So reason supplements and improves on what's already there, by allowing not just passive coincidences to be analysed but also active, willfully arranged coincidences (ie collating thoughts and ideas).

Eta: furthermore, that above process identifies the first kind of truth... ie the stable patterns in whatever is presented. But I'd guess that the second process involved in reason... logical deduction to explain those stable features... is on similar lines, but instead of willfully collating things to be statistically analysed for patterns, you instead collate things to be detected: ie a neuron is a detector of the presence of whatever it detects in the environment. So if you willfully arrange coincidences of ideas for detection, ie whether they support the conclusion or not, that could be a valid explanation. Needs a bit of work though on the how's and whys, but it looks feasible to me.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 15, 2017 at 8:58 am)Emjay Wrote: @benny. Still reading but I'll just add a little bit of food for thought in case it's relevant to either of us: what about a lucid dream? First you are dreaming as normal and as such you take everything in the dream (the context/environment)... as true. But then you can become aware that you are dreaming.... that is you become aware of information outside the context which changes the rules of the game completely... introduces a relative underlying principle of your reality (living in the dream) that changes how you interact with it in profound (and wonderful) ways. So could that not be likened to an absolute/objective truth that exists outside the context/environment, but which can nonetheless be discovered from within the context/environment? Just food for thought.

Well, that's a very interesting example. I'm not sure, when you're lucid dreaming, if you can choose to receive sensory input, though obviously it very often happens spontaneously.  That outside awareness would be to a lucid dream much as divine intervention would be to our mundane existence, I suppose.  Or, if it's really voluntary, maybe something like taking the red pill in the Matrix.

I'd also say that some kinds of thinking, like insight meditation or just too much philosophy or quantum mechanics reading, can lead to a translation of context in the other direction: you become aware that the ground you're standing on is much less firm than you thought-- the universe, including everything and everyone you thought you knew, is mostly empty, that-which-makes-you-you falls away under close scrutiny, and so on.

So yeah, we can play with contexts sometimes, and perhaps one definition of genius would be that one has the insight to build bridges between contexts that nobody has connected yet.

(January 15, 2017 at 9:44 am)Emjay Wrote: So reason supplements and improves on what's already there, by allowing not just passive coincidences to be analysed but also active, willfully arranged coincidences (ie collating thoughts and ideas).

You're in danger of opening up a thread-wrecking can of worms, methinks, because the word "will" is if anything more controversial than the definition or use of evidence.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Don't worry, I'm not gonna get into will. Well I will briefly Wink as far as I'm concerned, it's just part of the system... driven by dynamics just as much as everything else... so there's a bigger picture in neural terms (based on the interaction of plans and needs etc of the system) that causes ABCD and JKLM to be brought together. We call it will, but ultimately I believe it's just neural dynamics in action. But indeed, no need for a derail to discuss it. So above I really shouldn't have used the words 'you' or 'will' at all but rather 'system'.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
The question of will from a neural point of view is very interesting. The actual choices that are made are easy enough to understand from the neural point of view (in terms of competition and inhibition dynamics), but what is harder is the timing, and any valid theory of will needs to account for that. Call it the scratching of the arse problem Wink So if I'm just idly lounging around and decide at some point in time to scratch my arse, what determines when I do it... either t or t+10 (assuming nothing else is going on)? It's an interesting question, and probably answered by the fact that something else is going on, even if only subtle and subconscious.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
Computationally, timing is a non issue.  Discrepancy between variable timings (if there even -are- variable ticks in the system) is handled by registers.  In the event that they -cannot- be resolved there is no shortage of processes with which to handle the error. Our computers (deplorably lacking examples of the set if our brains are computers as well) manage to deal with timing related issues all day erryday. They pose no insurmountable problem to a calculator, and this leaves me wondering why they would pose any greater a problem to our minds.

I'd leverage the same response even if I didn't think that our minds were computational, as an example of how a known object handles the problem in question. It may be that our minds do it differently, but it;s obvious that such problems -can be- handled. That any questions related to timing may be interesting, but are not fundamentally unresolvable. Ergo, they cannot be used, as objections, to argue against the possibility or probability of any explanation "x".
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 15, 2017 at 11:45 am)Khemikal Wrote: Computationally, timing is a non issue.  Discrepancy between variable timings (if there even -are- variable ticks in the system) is handled by registers.  In the event that they -cannot- be resolved there is no shortage of processes with which to handle the error. Our computers (deplorably lacking examples of the set if our brains are computers as well) manage to deal with timing related issues all day erryday. They pose no insurmountable problem to a calculator, and this leaves me wondering why they would pose any greater a problem to our minds.

I'm not sure that applies to how I view the processing in the brain. To me it's basically just the constant flux and flow of neural dynamics. So a choice represents one context or another gaining the upper hand in competition with others etc. So any large gap in timing doesn't really fit. So in that case one explanation could be that there is still 'settling' going on, just more subtly and out of conscious awareness... so though it feels like you're doing/thinking nothing when you're being idle, there may still be plenty going on below the surface.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 15, 2017 at 11:57 am)Emjay Wrote: I'm not sure that applies to how I view the processing in the brain. To me it's basically just the constant flux  and flow of neural dynamics. So a choice represents one context or another gaining the upper hand in competition with others etc. So any large gap in timing doesn't really fit.
Then you're explicitly proposing a scenario in which the brain is somehow incapable of doing what a calculator does as a matter of course.  I'm not saying that it might not be true, that it might not actually "fit in"...only exploring what follows from the statement.  

Quote:So in that case one explanation could be that there is still 'settling' going on, just more subtly and out of conscious awareness... so though it feels like you're doing/thinking nothing when you're being idle, there may still be plenty going on below the surface.
Well, that isn't even a "what if" or "may be", you're not consciously aware of the process behind your heart beating or lungs breathing either. Hell, we don't seem to be consciously aware of -any- process involved in how we think about things, automatic this and thats aside ( even assuming that anything isn't). You can't tell me where in your mind any thought is happening even if an mri might be able to.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 15, 2017 at 12:26 pm)Khemikal Wrote:
(January 15, 2017 at 11:57 am)Emjay Wrote: I'm not sure that applies to how I view the processing in the brain. To me it's basically just the constant flux  and flow of neural dynamics. So a choice represents one context or another gaining the upper hand in competition with others etc. So any large gap in timing doesn't really fit.
Then you're explicitly proposing a scenario in which the brain is somehow incapable of doing what a calculator does as a matter of course.  I'm not saying that it might not be true, that it might not actually "fit in"...only exploring what follows from the statement.  

Yes I guess I am and I guess this is where we diverge. You have your theory and I'll have mine. To me 'computation' comes from transformation and abstraction (ie what you might call classes in logic, but the neural equivalent... lines into shapes into objects etc) rather than whatever you mean by it.

Quote:
Quote:So in that case one explanation could be that there is still 'settling' going on, just more subtly and out of conscious awareness... so though it feels like you're doing/thinking nothing when you're being idle, there may still be plenty going on below the surface.
Well, that isn't even a "what if" or "may be", you're not consciously aware of the process behind your heart beating or lungs breathing either. Hell, we don't seem to be consciously aware of -any- process involved in how we think about things, automatic this and thats aside ( even assuming that anything isn't). You can't tell me where in your mind any thought is happening even if an mri might be able to.

That's what I said isn't it? That's a reasonable conclusion but me being me I like to be exact... so if possible I'd always prefer a detailed explanation than a vague 'probably'. So therefore the question still remains open to me but it's not pressing.
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 15, 2017 at 12:43 pm)Emjay Wrote: Yes I guess I am and I guess this is where we diverge. You have your theory and I'll have mine. To me 'computation' comes from transformation and abstraction (ie what you might call classes in logic, but the neural equivalent... lines into shapes into objects etc) rather than whatever you mean by it.
-which is why I explained that it's not theory dependent.   That it can be done is evident; how we do it, if we do it, if it happens, is not.  It's not that it "doesn't fit", that if such a situation were present it would somehow contradict or argue against your theory or mine (or any theory).   A non-functional objection.  

Quote:That's what I said isn't it?
It is, I was giving more concrete examples to show that there was no need for maybes or what ifs.  

Quote:That's a reasonable conclusion but me being me I like to be exact... so if possible I'd always prefer a detailed explanation than a vague 'probably'. So therefore the question still remains open to me but it's not pressing.
Agreed, which is why the concrete examples of automatic processes in biology and the concrete example of how ccurrently understood computational architectures handle timing discrepancy are so useful.  We seek to unravel and understand the unknown by reference to the known.

Not disagreeing with you or arguing a theory vs another, discussing the mechanics of how we approach a logical analysis of claims pursuant to either(any).
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
RE: Is the statement "Claims demand evidence" always true?
(January 15, 2017 at 12:53 pm)Khemikal Wrote:
(January 15, 2017 at 12:43 pm)Emjay Wrote: Yes I guess I am and I guess this is where we diverge. You have your theory and I'll have mine. To me 'computation' comes from transformation and abstraction (ie what you might call classes in logic, but the neural equivalent... lines into shapes into objects etc) rather than whatever you mean by it.
-which is why I explained that it's not theory dependent.   That it can be done is evident; how we do it, if we do it, if it happens, is not.  It's not that it "doesn't fit", that if such a situation were present it would somehow contradict or argue against your theory or mine (or any theory).   A non-functional objection.  

Quote:That's what I said isn't it?
It is, I was giving more concrete examples to show that there was no need for maybes or what ifs.  

Quote:That's a reasonable conclusion but me being me I like to be exact... so if possible I'd always prefer a detailed explanation than a vague 'probably'. So therefore the question still remains open to me but it's not pressing.
Agreed, which is why the concrete examples of automatic processes in biology and the concrete example of how ccurrently understood computational architectures handle timing discrepancy are so useful.  We seek to unravel and understand the unknown by reference to the known.

Not disagreeing with you or arguing a theory vs another, discussing the mechanics of how we approach a logical analysis of claims pursuant to either(any).

Agreed on all points Smile

Though just to say, in my opinion scratching your arse is not comparable to subconscious processes like the heart beating... it involves a choice to do so and/or a trigger to do so. So that doesn't cut it for me personally, but as you said that doesn't matter... they're just different theories.

Actually, that said, those processes can come into conscious awareness and be acted upon (more so breathing than the heart rate) so there could be a similarity/connection after all. So scrub what I said.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Greek philosophers always knew about the causeless universe Interaktive 10 1265 September 25, 2022 at 2:28 pm
Last Post: Anomalocaris
  Why is murder wrong if Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is true? FlatAssembler 52 3739 August 7, 2022 at 8:51 am
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  How To Tell What Is True From What Is Untrue. redpill 39 3474 December 28, 2019 at 4:45 pm
Last Post: Sal
  Is this Quite by Kenneth Boulding True Rhondazvous 11 1478 August 6, 2019 at 11:55 am
Last Post: Alan V
Video Neurosurgeon Provides Evidence Against Materialism Guard of Guardians 41 4177 June 17, 2019 at 10:40 pm
Last Post: vulcanlogician
  The Philosophy of Mind: Zombies, "radical emergence" and evidence of non-experiential Edwardo Piet 82 11544 April 29, 2018 at 1:57 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Testimony is Evidence RoadRunner79 588 115136 September 13, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Last Post: Astonished
Video Do we live in a universe where theism is likely true? (video) Angrboda 36 11287 May 28, 2017 at 1:53 am
Last Post: bennyboy
  Is it true that there is no absolute morality? WisdomOfTheTrees 259 24372 March 23, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Anecdotal Evidence RoadRunner79 395 50591 December 14, 2016 at 2:53 pm
Last Post: downbeatplumb



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)