Is truth really subject to interpretation, do we prefer to spin it in a direction that is more palatable, or are we just plain lazy – unwilling to make the effort? I notice that given a set of facts people are very capable of coming up with numerous conclusions and explanations. Is that just inherent to our humanness or is it the obtuse nature of facts? If facts are obtuse then the word “facts” itself is an oxymoron.

How about this:

"Truth is a function of motive and/or need/desire."

‘dog, are you an old cynic or an elderly realist? What’s the truth?

...a cynical realist?

I get a kick out of how rock solid facts can be, and yet 'truth' can be so squishy and malleable.

I love that two people can agree to disagree about a set of facts because they recognize that their 'truths' differ.

And Henry's reference to the differing interpretations of the same neuro-image is instructive/demonstrative of Truth's squishy, malleable nature, which I think forces us to back up a step or two and wonder about "BRAIN"!!


If everyone had my brain, the world would be very lovely, very pacific, but the birth rate would be ever so much higher.

What would the world be like if everyone had your brain?

I agree with your statement, but with the proviso "as long as both sides are clearly seeking the truth" which often wriggles fish-like out of reach. Appreciations and opinions may differ, but as long as they are honestly and knowledgeabley held.

> ...a cynical realist?

Why say it twice? You're usually not one for redundancy, but here. . .

The Mormons could be right?

Fact. Truth is fact.

Truth has nothing to do with wishing, hoping, needing, wanting, believing, disbelieving, and never subjective. Subjective is for agendas that bend the truth and those guilty don't care that the second you bend the truth it snaps in half and falls to the floor.

As a word, Truth is very convenient when attached to the word My, Your, Our & Their as a way to circumvent the true meaning:Fact. Pure fact.

It is or it isn't. Period. Like you said, "If facts are obtuse then the word “facts” itself is an oxymoron."

Does "scientific" cloud or clarify "fact"?

I think Human's response speaks to that. Interpretation of fact is what scientists do. Sometimes they are accurate and sometimes they are not. The good thing about science is it is exciting to find out you were wrong about something.

Science is the study, the exploration of fact, of what is. Science doesn't cloud fact, but agendas attaching the "science word" to themselves do--- as the word can carry more weight in some people minds than it should. Every good scientist knows they could be wrong about anything.

You can call the sun anything you want, define it anyway you want, claim anything about it you want, but in the end, the sun is what it is.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fact. Truth is fact.
>
> Truth has nothing to do with wishing, hoping,
> needing, wanting, believing, disbelieving, and
> never subjective.


^^ About truth? This.


About God? At this stage of my life, I now say that the only real truth is that we just don't know.

The Church? I did not know about the evidence against the Church when I became a member of that organization. Had I known what I know today I never would have been baptized. I believed them when they told me I'd found the truth. I was a teenager and adults wouldn't lie to me. Would they?

I now know that there is far too much evidence showing that the organization I once belonged to is not what it purports itself to be. No amount of ignoring the evidence is ever going to make it true. It simply is not.

A friend of mine who announced that she was going back asked me, "What if it's true?" I laughed and said, "On that score, I am 100% confident that it is not. I've no worries there."

Birdman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I notice that given a set of
> facts people are very capable of coming up with
> numerous conclusions and explanations.

Yes. It’s called interpretation. We complicate facts by asking what they mean.

Your sentence reminded me of this article about neuro-imaging:

“When 70 independent teams were tasked with analyzing identical brain images, no two teams chose the same approach and their conclusions were highly variable”:


https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/research-teams-reach-different-results-from-same-brain-scan-data-67545

The set of factS here are the identical neuro-images. What those images mean, well, apparently they mean what you will.

Yes. It’s called interpretation. We complicate facts by asking what they mean.

COMMENT: More specifically, we should remember that "facts" are supposed to represent how the world is, independent of human observers and their interpretations, spins, and "meanings." If we are realists, we think there are indeed such facts to be discovered and considered; scientific or otherwise, whether we can access them or not.

However, note also that facts are necessarily expressed by statements in a language. These statements represent "propositions." (Thus, theoretically, the same propositions could be expressed in different languages, including perhaps mathematics.) It is here that the complications you note begin.

With this explanation, we can consider your statement: "We complicate facts by asking what they mean." The complication of facts begins with the expression of such facts as propositions in a language, because of the ambiguities of language generally; including especially ambiguities of "meaning." The idea of "interpretation" not only encompasses such ambiguities, but also suggests subjectivity in accordance with one's particular belief system and worldview. (See Quine's holism) So, when one considers all of this, not only is your point well taken, it is a small wonder humans can communicate at all.
____________________________________________

Your sentence reminded me of this article about neuro-imaging:

“When 70 independent teams were tasked with analyzing identical brain images, no two teams chose the same approach and their conclusions were highly variable”

COMMENT: See William R. Uttal, The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain, for a discussion on this specific point, and the excesses of neuroscientific interpretations of brain imaging data.
____________________________________________

The set of factS here are the identical neuro-images. What those images mean, well, apparently they mean what you will.

COMMENT: I don't think that you can go from ambiguity of meaning to relativism that swiftly. In the first place, to even ask the question as to what they mean, you are presumably asking about their correlation with facts; i.e. how the world (brain and human cognition) is. Each proposition suggesting some interpretation of this data represents an attempt to make this connection, and is successful or unsuccessful according to whether the data and arguments are convincing or not. But, even if they are all unconvincing, and even if there is *no* connection (fact of the matter) linking this imaging data to any "meaning" in terms of human cognition, that does NOT mean that realism in neuroscience is false; i.e. that there are not facts of the matter that correlate a given brain state with some cognitive mental state. In other words, the fact that meaning is elusive, does not make it relative; and is not an argument against realism.

I hope this all made sense.
Best personal regards,

HB

If the meaning is elusive wouldn't the better reply be, "I don't know"? I think the bigger problem concerning facts and their interpretation is the eagerness to draw a conclusion based upon incomplete evidence.

If the meaning is elusive wouldn't the better reply be, "I don't know"? I think the bigger problem concerning facts and their interpretation is the eagerness to draw a conclusion based upon incomplete evidence.

COMMENT: In real life (non-scientific) contexts jumping to conclusions is often complicated by the needs of the moment, and/or by the force of one's personal hopes and dreams. We are often compelled to draw conclusions on insufficient evidence because something important is deemed to be at stake.

In science, you have a point in suggesting that "I don't know" should perhaps be more often emphasized. However, ambiguity of meaning and interpretation in science comes in degrees. Although there is no certainty, scientists believe (as I do) that science can approach truth (facts of the matter), and to some extent sort out ambiguities. However, there is no question that scientists (like the rest of us) overreach in characterizing the legitimacy and importance of their conclusions.

In my view this is a particular problem in neuroscience because the brain is so complicated, and neuroscientists are hard-pressed to make their theoretical work (e.g. mind-brain correlations) "meaningful." I don't want to get too far off track with your post, but the book I cited to Human addresses one example; neuroimaging.

"I don't know" is one of my most favorite phrases ever, followed by "Who the hell knows?"

And yet scientists know exactly what happens if you damage the frontal lobe through a lobotomy, what sorts of brain injuries are correlated with psychopathy, and where damage will preclude visual processing (helpfully called the "visual cortex"), what parts of the brain are involved in reading or conversely dyslexia. If your position were correct, there could be no such localization of function.

That's my problem with your top-down approach to neurology: it is contradicted by bottom-up empirical research that is rock solid. No theory is correct if it is empirically incorrect.

Neuroscientists, and particularly neuropsychologists, do NOT know "exactly what happens" with respect to the relation between damage to the frontal lobes and cognitive performance. Perhaps the most preeminent neuropsychologist today is Antonio Damasio, who has written numerous books on the effects of brain pathology on cognitive functioning, based in large part upon his own clinical experiences. Here is a statement from his book, "Descartes' Error" :

"Throughout this book I have spoken about accepted facts, disputed facts, and interpretations of facts; about ideas shared or not shared by many of us in the brain-mind sciences; about things that are as I say, and things that may be as I say. The reader may have been surprised at my insistence that so many "facts" are uncertain and that so much of what can be said about the brain is best stated as working hypotheses. Naturally, I wish I could say that we know with certainty how the brain goes about the business of making mind, but I cannot -- and, I am afraid, no one can."

Similar statements can be found in all of his books and writings, including specifically the effect of damage to the frontal lobes on cognitive function. As he suggests, such effects depend crucially on the nature of the specific damage, and the neural networks in other parts of the brain that are also involved and affected by such damage. This can vary from person to person in significant ways. Here is another quote from Damasio from a more recent book, Self Comes to Mind:

"Even with the help of neuroscience techniques more powerful than are available today, we are unlikely ever to chart the full scope of neural phenomena associated with a mental state, even a simple one. What is possible and needed, for the time being, is a gradual theoretical approximation supported by new empirical evidence."

I have read ALL of Damasio's books, and countless others that address the state of neuroscience with respect to the mind-brain relationship. The conclusions are all very general and tentative owing to the complexity of the brain. Virtually all work in neuroscience is highly theoretical. As he says:

"There is not one simple answer to the brain/mind puzzle, but rather many answers, keyed to the myriad components of the nervous system at its many levels of structure."

Thank you for providing actual quotations from Damasio. His statements do not support your contention.


---------------------
> Neuroscientists, and particularly
> neuropsychologists, do NOT know "exactly what
> happens" with respect to the relation between
> damage to the frontal lobes and cognitive
> performance.

No one said anything about knowing "exactly" anything about the brain. I spoke of correlation and a sense of what happens when certain parts of the brain are injured.

I mentioned several examples. What about the visual cortex, another example I raised. Is it correct that visual processing is concentrated, not wholly located but concentrated, in a specific part of the brain?


-----------------
> "Throughout this book I have spoken about accepted
> facts, disputed facts, and interpretations of
> facts; about ideas shared or not shared by many of
> us in the brain-mind sciences; about things that
> are as I say, and things that may be as I say.
> The reader may have been surprised at my
> insistence that so many "facts" are uncertain and
> that so much of what can be said about the brain
> is best stated as working hypotheses. Naturally, I
> wish I could say that we know with certainty how
> the brain goes about the business of making mind,
> but I cannot -- and, I am afraid, no one can."

Here we go again. You claim that science does not know where specific processes are localized and then cite an expert who says something very different: namely, that we do not "know with certainty how the brain goes about the business of making mind."

That is YOUR hobbyhorse: that we don't know what makes "mind." I agree with that. Where we disagree is in your claim that science has not tied specific functions--visual processing, language processing, sound processing, reading, emotion--to specific brain regions. Your theory about brain function cannot be true if it is falsified by specific functions, and it is.


-------------
> Similar statements can be found in all of his
> books and writings, including specifically the
> effect of damage to the frontal lobes on cognitive
> function. As he suggests, such effects depend
> crucially on the nature of the specific damage,
> and the neural networks in other parts of the
> brain that are also involved and affected by such
> damage.

That supports my position, not yours. I never claimed that any brain function was entirely concentrated in any region of the organ; such a position would make no sense since, most obviously, the brain communicates with the body through the brain and neural networks. But the very statement that the effect of harm to the frontal lobes depends on "specific damage" to that lobe as well as "other parts of the brain that are...involved" implies a general specialization of parts of the organ, which is what I have told you innumerable times.


--------------
> "Even with the help of neuroscience techniques
> more powerful than are available today, we are
> unlikely ever to chart the full scope of neural
> phenomena associated with a mental state, even a
> simple one. What is possible and needed, for the
> time being, is a gradual theoretical approximation
> supported by new empirical evidence."

You really need to be more precise with your argument. Here your source says we will never localize any particular "mental state." You often speak of "mind." It may be true that we will never understand the physiology of "mind" or "mental state" but you go much farther, saying that brain imaging cannot locate specific brain functions, which is demonstrably false.

If you said that we don't know how "mind" or "mental state" work, our conflict would disappear--at least with regard to current levels of science. But the moment you deny the ability to localize specific mental processes in particular regions of the brain, you lose the argument because we really do know where language and sight and sound and impulse are processed. We know where a stroke must occur to cause visual problems.


---------------
> I have read ALL of Damasio's books, and countless
> others that address the state of neuroscience with
> respect to the mind-brain relationship. The
> conclusions are all very general and tentative
> owing to the complexity of the brain. Virtually
> all work in neuroscience is highly theoretical. As
> he says:
>
> "There is not one simple answer to the brain/mind
> puzzle, but rather many answers, keyed to the
> myriad components of the nervous system at its
> many levels of structure."

Again, this shows your error. He is speaking of "mind" and you are speaking of both "mind" and "function." Your sources do not make that mistake. You shouldn't either.

No one said anything about knowing "exactly" anything about the brain. I spoke of correlation and a sense of what happens when certain parts of the brain are injured.

COMMENT: But, you did! Quote: "And yet scientists know *exactly* what happens if you damage the frontal lobe through a lobotomy, what sorts of brain injuries are correlated with psychopathy, and where damage will preclude visual processing (helpfully called the "visual cortex"), what parts of the brain are involved in reading or conversely dyslexia. If your position were correct, there could be no such localization of function."

Neuroscientists do, of course, do have a lot of general information and general locations. But, to use your example, the pre-frontal lobes represent a big functional place in the brain, billions of neurons and neuronal connections. To identify some particular function as correlated with the pre-frontal lobes is hardly a meaningful "localization." After all a number of cognitive functions involve the prefrontal lobes. Moreover, in the case of Damasio, he acknowledges several other places in the brain that are correlated with emotion; all of which are also very "regional" in description rather that specific to individual, isolated neural structures.
________________________________________

I mentioned several examples. What about the visual cortex, another example I raised. Is it correct that visual processing is concentrated, not wholly located but concentrated, in a specific part of the brain?

COMMENT: This is a better example than Damasio's concentration on reason and emotion; so I will grant you that. But even here you have to deal with problems of unification; i.e. the so-called "binding problem." The visual system is no doubt the best understood "system" in the brain, but even here there are global structures involved that complicate any localization claim.
_______________________________________

Here we go again. You claim that science does not know where specific processes are localized and then cite an expert who says something very different: namely, that we do not "know with certainty how the brain goes about the business of making mind."

COMMENT: Damasio's books are about the cognitive functions of the mind, and in particular emotion; and not specifically about the mind-body problem. Look at my last cited quote:

"Even with the help of neuroscience techniques more powerful than are available today, we are unlikely ever to chart the full scope of neural phenomena associated with a mental state, even a simple one. What is possible and needed, for the time being, is a gradual theoretical approximation supported by new empirical evidence."

He was saying that even with his own established correlations there are ambiguities of localization. In general, he favors a "systems approach" to the brain, rather than a localizes, modular approach.
_________________________________________

That is YOUR hobbyhorse: that we don't know what makes "mind." I agree with that. Where we disagree is in your claim that science has not tied specific functions--visual processing, language processing, sound processing, reading, emotion--to specific brain regions. Your theory about brain function cannot be true if it is falsified by specific functions, and it is.

COMMENT: No. The problem we are discussing is "localization." Identification of "regions" of the brain as being *involved* with a cognitive mental state or function (along with other regions) is not localization of a function. Ideally, localization would provide the necessary and sufficient neural processes that correlate with the function in question. *That* is what eludes neuroscience. But this is not to say that they have not made significant progress toward such localization by identifying various regions of the brain that might be involved
______________________________________________

That supports my position, not yours. I never claimed that any brain function was entirely concentrated in any region of the organ; such a position would make no sense since, most obviously, the brain communicates with the body through the brain and neural networks. But the very statement that the effect of harm to the frontal lobes depends on "specific damage" to that lobe as well as "other parts of the brain that are...involved" implies a general specialization of parts of the organ, which is what I have told you innumerable times.

COMMENT: See my comments above. Identifying regions where correlation exists--where each such region involves billions of neurons and neuronal connections, does NOT imply specialization; it implies correlation. Moreover, there is considerable ambiguity in deciding how a given function is to be demarcated; particularly with such nebulous characterizations of "emotion," (Damasio's main theme!) (Read Uttal's book, it discusses these issues at length.)
__________________________________________________

You really need to be more precise with your argument. Here your source says we will never localize any particular "mental state." You often speak of "mind." It may be true that we will never understand the physiology of "mind" or "mental state" but you go much farther, saying that brain imaging cannot locate specific brain functions, which is demonstrably false.

COMMENT: Brain imaging is helpful in identifying correlated regions of the brain *involved* in certain generally described cognitive processes. It most certainly CANNOT isolate "specific brain localizations" for "specific brain functions." That is just a fact when you are dealing with 100 billion neurons, and trillions of possible connections in a complicated neural network. Every neuroscientist understands this limitation.
______________________________________

If you said that we don't know how "mind" or "mental state" work, our conflict would disappear--at least with regard to current levels of science. But the moment you deny the ability to localize specific mental processes in particular regions of the brain, you lose the argument because we really do know where language and sight and sound and impulse are processed. We know where a stroke must occur to cause visual problems.

COMMENT: Again, neuroscientists have a general idea of various regions in the brain where language is processed, and sensory data of various sensory modalities is processed.
______________________________________

Again, this shows your error. He is speaking of "mind" and you are speaking of both "mind" and "function." Your sources do not make that mistake. You shouldn't either.

COMMENT: You apparently haven't read the Damasio's books or writings on this subject. So, really, how can you make such a statement. Damasio is speaking of both. But his books are about correlations between the brain and emotion and reasoning. And he identifies very general regions of correlation; and acknowledges that repeatedly! READ THE BOOKS!

Yeah, you are changing your position.

Our debate stems from my saying that brain imaging and other techniques have identified parts of the brain that function in particular ways. In specific, I mentioned reading and dyslexia. You replied by saying that is nonsense. Now you are moving the goal posts. You are arguing that "okay, science HAS found regions that are "correlated" (my word, subsequently appropriated by you) with specific functions but we still don't know precisely how the functioning occurs. But that was never the question. I never claimed we knew HOW some function occur, just WHERE the functions predominately occur.



------------
> COMMENT: But, you did! Quote: "And yet scientists
> know *exactly* what happens if you damage the
> frontal lobe through a lobotomy, what sorts of
> brain injuries are correlated with psychopathy,
> and where damage will preclude visual processing
> (helpfully called the "visual cortex"), what parts
> of the brain are involved in reading or conversely
> dyslexia. If your position were correct, there
> could be no such localization of function."

Yes, I said "exactly." But I did NOT use that word the way you allege. I said that science knows exactly what sorts of functions are impaired by injury to specific locations. I stand by that. If you damage someone's visual cortex, people's vision is harmed. That is unquestionably true. I do not need to know how "exactly" the functions are impaired to know "what sorts of brain injuries are correlated" with damage to specific functions.


------------------
> Neuroscientists do, of course, do have a lot of
> general information and general locations. But,
> to use your example, the pre-frontal lobes
> represent a big functional place in the brain,
> billions of neurons and neuronal connections. To
> identify some particular function as correlated
> with the pre-frontal lobes is hardly a meaningful
> "localization." After all a number of cognitive
> functions involve the prefrontal lobes. Moreover,
> in the case of Damasio, he acknowledges several
> other places in the brain that are correlated with
> emotion; all of which are also very "regional" in
> description rather that specific to individual,
> isolated neural structures.

You see, this is where you adopt my position. I never claimed to know how the brain achieves functional results. What I said from the beginning is that brain imaging can and does identify parts of the brain that produce certain functions. Time and again you have denied that and yet here you cite Damasio as supporting my views.


------------------
> COMMENT: This is a better example than Damasio's
> concentration on reason and emotion; so I will
> grant you that. But even here you have to deal
> with problems of unification; i.e. the so-called
> "binding problem." The visual system is no doubt
> the best understood "system" in the brain, but
> even here there are global structures involved
> that complicate any localization claim.

No, I do not have to deal with "unification." I never made any claims about that. What I said, and you rejected, was that science has identified regions associated with functions. I stand by that argument, not the one you now want to foist upon me.


---------------
> COMMENT: Damasio's books are about the cognitive
> functions of the mind, and in particular emotion;
> and not specifically about the mind-body problem.
> Look at my last cited quote:
>
> "Even with the help of neuroscience techniques
> more powerful than are available today, we are
> unlikely ever to chart the full scope of neural
> phenomena associated with a mental state, even a
> simple one. What is possible and needed, for the
> time being, is a gradual theoretical approximation
> supported by new empirical evidence."
>
> He was saying that even with his own established
> correlations there are ambiguities of
> localization. In general, he favors a "systems
> approach" to the brain, rather than a localizes,
> modular approach.

That's interesting. It is also irrelevant to what you and I were discussing. You said on several occasions that brain imaging had failed to identify regions that are associated with functions. That was incorrect, as you reluctantly acknowledge with regard to visual perception above. I do not know, and did not say, that science will grasp "the full scope of neural phenomena associated with a mental state."


---------------------
> COMMENT: No. The problem we are discussing is
> "localization." Identification of "regions" of
> the brain as being *involved* with a cognitive
> mental state or function (along with other
> regions) is not localization of a function.

Really? If a person has a stroke that kills the part of the brain that processes visual images, that person will to one degree or another become blind--and neural imaging will indicate where the damage occurred. Likewise, reading is concentrated in three parts of the brain. In dyslexics, however, only one of those regions is activated in reading--as imaging shows. That is the argument you initially and frequently rejected. You were wrong.


-----------------
> Ideally, localization would provide the necessary
> and sufficient neural processes that correlate
> with the function in question. *That* is what
> eludes neuroscience. But this is not to say that
> they have not made significant progress toward
> such localization by identifying various regions
> of the brain that might be involved

Yeah, that is what I have been saying from the very beginning. You've denied localization countless times. Now you are talking about science having not arrived at "necessary and sufficient neural processes." That's moving the goalposts.


----------------
> Moreover, there is
> considerable ambiguity in deciding how a given
> function is to be demarcated; particularly with
> such nebulous characterizations of "emotion,"
> (Damasio's main theme!) (Read Uttal's book, it
> discusses these issues at length.)

Again, this is an interesting point. It is not, however, what we were arguing about. You denied that brain imaging had localized concrete functions in particular parts of the brain. You have now acknowledged that that is incorrect.


---------------
> COMMENT: Brain imaging is helpful in identifying
> correlated regions of the brain *involved* in
> certain generally described cognitive processes.
> It most certainly CANNOT isolate "specific brain
> localizations" for "specific brain functions."
> That is just a fact when you are dealing with 100
> billion neurons, and trillions of possible
> connections in a complicated neural network.
> Every neuroscientist understands this limitation.

It's amusing that you use my terminology, "correlation," to argue against my point. It is also interesting that you above accepted my example of visual processing but now reverse yourself by saying science "CANNOT isolate 'specific brain localizations' for 'specific brain functions.'" I reiterate: there are several functions--including visual processing, language, and reading--that science has, through imaging and other techniques, localized.


----------------
> COMMENT: Again, neuroscientists have a general
> idea of various regions in the brain where
> language is processed, and sensory data of various
> sensory modalities is processed.

Thank you. That is, and always has been, what I said.


-----------------
> COMMENT: You apparently haven't read the Damasio's
> books or writings on this subject. So, really, how
> can you make such a statement. Damasio is speaking
> of both. But his books are about correlations
> between the brain and emotion and reasoning. And
> he identifies very general regions of correlation;
> and acknowledges that repeatedly! READ THE BOOKS!

I have no problem accepting that those are very good books and that they discuss "brain and emotion and reasoning." But that is not what we were discussing. I will defend my position, not the straw man you are constructing for me.


---------------
Henry, why not just admit that you were talking about "reasoning" and "emotion?" I would not have objected to what you said about those. But when you said that brain imaging had not localized functions like vision, audible processing, language, reading, etc., you were wrong. Period.

Henry!

About that slippery slide you wish for me to amend:

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The set of factS here are the identical
> neuro-images. What those images mean, well,
> apparently they mean what you will.
>
> COMMENT: I don't think that you can go from
> ambiguity of meaning to relativism that swiftly.
> In the first place, to even ask the question as to
> what they mean, you are presumably asking about
> their correlation with facts; i.e. how the world
> (brain and human cognition) is. Each proposition
> suggesting some interpretation of this data
> represents an attempt to make this connection, and
> is successful or unsuccessful according to whether
> the data and arguments are convincing or not. But,
> even if they are all unconvincing, and even if
> there is *no* connection (fact of the matter)
> linking this imaging data to any "meaning" in
> terms of human cognition, that does NOT mean that
> realism in neuroscience is false; i.e. that there
> are not facts of the matter that correlate a given
> brain state with some cognitive mental state. In
> other words, the fact that meaning is elusive,
> does not make it relative; and is not an argument
> against realism.

Not an argument against realism per se, of course. But our ability to see the sought after reality is mired in extreme difficulties, including the varieties and vagaries of human choice. SHARKing is just one of many examples of this variety and vagary. And with billions and billions of dollars at stake, let alone general human nature, I'm not prepared to grant that each proposed interpretation is selflessly motivated by the purest of desires to know *the facts of the matter*. Seventy teams arriving at 70 different interpretations for a brain image is far more troubling than this article expresses, it seems to me. You're right, it doesn't suggest that there isn't *some* kind of fact of the matter correlating an image with an interpretation, but it does show us some of the problems at finding what that fact of the matter is.

I am heartened by the suggestion to hone in and systematize methodological practices for interpreting neuro-images, to ferret out and correct "the unintentional degrees of freedom we have in our analysis." But of course this is also fraught with our humanness.



> I hope this all made sense.
> Best personal regards,
>
> HB

Right back at ya. (Is your email broken?)

Thanks, Human. I always appreciate your input. (As far as I'm concerned, you're the smartest guy in the room!)

"Not an argument against realism per se, of course. But our ability to see the sought after reality is mired in extreme difficulties, including the varieties and vagaries of human choice."

COMMENT: There is no question about that. Depending on the context, the difficulties in ascertaining "truth" are often monumental. Taking it one step farther, there *does* come a point when the difficulties are such that we might as well just decide to go with our gut, and let others do the same. (Relativism through the back door.) Personally, I resist this to the very fiber of my being; but that could well be just my own naïveté. Same goes for human choice. I cling to human free will not because I have an explanation for how it works, but because the repercussions of denying it are just completely unacceptable.
___________________________________________

SHARKing is just one of many examples of this variety and vagary. And with billions and billions of dollars at stake, let alone general human nature, I'm not prepared to grant that each proposed interpretation is selflessly motivated by the purest of desires to know *the facts of the matter*.

COMMENT: Well, I certainly agree here too. But, then we do have cognitive skills that help to sort it out. And we can use these same skills to assess human motivations. Why not use them, even if we sometimes get it wrong; and even if we might never know when we get it right or wrong.
________________________________________

Seventy teams arriving at 70 different interpretations for a brain image is far more troubling than this article expresses, it seems to me. You're right, it doesn't suggest that there isn't *some* kind of fact of the matter correlating an image with an interpretation, but it does show us some of the problems at finding what that fact of the matter is.

COMMENT: Here I am at least prepared to give each of the 70 interpreters the benefit of the doubt as to their good faith. I see the problem as being with neuroimaging and over exuberance in finding some interpretation. And here, I actually doubt there is a fact of the matter. Neuroimaging is much to coarse grained to provide much definitive, fine-tuned, information about the workings of 100 billion neurons of the brain.
______________________________________

I am heartened by the suggestion to hone in and systematize methodological practices for interpreting neuro-images, to ferret out and correct "the unintentional degrees of freedom we have in our analysis." But of course this is also fraught with our humanness.

COMMENT: Yes. This is also way too idealistic about how "methodological practices" might help the problem, or how to handle the "degrees of freedom" inherent in neurology. Physics knows how to handle degrees of freedom; i.e. they are manageable. Neuroscience does not even know what degrees of freedom might be at play.

Finally, same email address. Let me know if I missed something, and I will check my "junk mail." No offense intended. :)

We’ve seen on this board the difficulty with and appreciation for the not so novel concept, “I don’t know”. But the concept, “it’s impossible to know” is more difficult and much under appreciated. It’s possible that some things are impossible to know.

That said, of course we should continue striving to overcome the impossible.


My gut, since you’ve allowed that the gut isn’t entirely unwarranted, says that the sooner we ditch the computational metaphor for the brain the better.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/rodney_a_brooks-the-cul-de-sac-of-the-computational-metaphor

However, as it is, there are many who have to first understand that it *is* a metaphor in the first place.

(I had tried to reply point by point to your post but the whole thing got too messed up in the tiny text box on my phone. And oh, I sent an email at the beginning of Covid to know if all was well and another when you took a break. Nothing consequential.)

Here’s my dilemma. Like many here I was once a Mormon. The facts that make this religion a fraud weren’t just discovered 10 or 20 years ago, but were present from the day of its founding. I was aware of these facts as soon as I started to read, yet it took years to escape this nonsense. What puzzles me is that despite knowing the facts and despite being cheap I continued to pay my 10% on my gross rather than embracing the truth.

Looking around this forum doesn’t exactly make me hopeful for my future. I presume, being deceived is part of the human condition.

Here’s my dilemma. Like many here I was once a Mormon. The facts that make this religion a fraud weren’t just discovered 10 or 20 years ago, but were present from the day of its founding. I was aware of these facts as soon as I started to read, yet it took years to escape this nonsense. What puzzles me is that despite knowing the facts and despite being cheap I continued to pay my 10% on my gross rather than embracing the truth.

Looking around this forum doesn’t exactly make me hopeful for my future. I presume, being deceived is part of the human condition.

COMMENT: This is a problem of human psychology, not a problem about truth. Moreover, keep in mind that the Board also teaches us that we can overcome such deception. To me, that is a far more remarkable "truth."

I think 'truth' is Facts in the correct, accurate context.

I believe a common human dilemma is confusing belief with fact. Those of us that were members of the Mormon Church were taught to state our beliefs by presenting them in a false light, “I know that God lives and that Joseph Smith is a true prophet.” The problem with that statement is that it is not just true of Mormonism but of many beliefs that we hold in our lives. Somehow our personal anecdotal beliefs become knowledge. Unfortunately, nothing short of a case of dynamite with the possible assistance of an atom bomb will dislodge those beliefs which through a mystical evolutionary process become fact.

You can change the frame on a painting but the painting remains the same. Gold leaf or black lacquer may harmonize it with the room's decor, but the paint on canvas is unchanged.


You can frame truth in any context you like, even add smoke and mirrors. You can frame with doubt. Frame it with belief. Add a layer of gauze. But that is obfuscation, and the truth is still behind it all---unchanged.


Change the setting for a diamond but it is still the same stone.

So many ignorantly or on purpose ignore the true meanings of words and change them to suit their purposes. Mormons seem to lead the pack when it comes to semantic games.

In today's society bad can mean good and wicked can mean excellent. All of it changes constantly but truth will be truth no matter what.

*smiley face goes here*

What is truth is what is real to you. Imagine if you found unicorn real. No different than finding some golden plates and claiming God and Jesus visited you long before these plates made you important.

Somehow our personal beliefs are truth for us.

What is truth is what is real to you. Imagine if you found unicorn real. No different than finding some golden plates and claiming God and Jesus visited you long before these plates made you important.

COMMENT: Why do you (and others) insist that reality lies in people's subjective beliefs? That is the equivalent of giving religious beliefs (among others) a free pass; i.e. "If its works for you, if you believe it, it must be your truth." With that attitude there is no responsibility to consider one's beliefs against reality.

Somehow our personal beliefs are truth for us.

COMMENT: Whether our personal beliefs are true or not depends upon how they mirror reality. All the beliefs in the world cannot make a proposition true--even for the person believing it! (For example when everyone believed that the earth was the center of the universe)

This relativism needs to be expunged from your worldview! :)

“That is the equivalent of giving religious beliefs (among others) a free pass”

Some schools of thought value subjective truth more than others. Existentialism, for example. Which school you subscribe to depends on your culture and disposition. It’s not so much a choice, or you wouldn’t be here trying to get Mormonism out of your head. It’s not that religions don’t have value, it’s that Mormonism is the worst deal in town. It turns you off to subjective reality, which locks you out of that world until or unless you find a way back in.

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s. It takes a lot of recovery to get back to that second part. After the betrayal of Mormonism, it took me a while but I couldn’t shake the paradox of the miracles of the spirit that happen in Mormonism (albeit rarely) when they shouldn’t arise from such an utter pile of crap. The power of subjective belief is real, in my experience. I wouldn’t be too quick to give up on it.

But HB. Doesn't belief in something tend to shape a person's reality? I'm not talking about "The Secret". I'm talking about the fact that belief shapes actions. It influences behavior. Even something like belief in one's character would shape how someone would act. Doesn't the way someone acts and how their actions are influenced by their beliefs impact the reality of those around them?

Is it true that what is good for one person might not be good for another person?

I'm not sure if I'm a moral relativist or not but I do know that what is right, or good, or true seems to be influenced by more than just fact.

Nice.

Yes, the Golden Rule isn’t perfect. Treating someone exactly like they want to be treated can be the same as holding their hand along the path to Hell. Do you respect their truth or do you try to change them? Obviously this is a problem that exmos encounter.

But HB. Doesn't belief in something tend to shape a person's reality? . . . It influences behavior. Even something like belief in one's character would shape how someone would act. Doesn't the way someone acts and how their actions are influenced by their beliefs impact the reality of those around them?

COMMENT: For a realist, reality is not subjective; it is not dependent upon what any given human thinks about it. It just "is what it is." However, one's beliefs certainly shape how one views reality; i.e. what they take objective reality to encompass. But in such cases, their view of reality is not reality itself, and objectively their views could be right or wrong. And certainly, how one's views reality, including how they view their own character, shapes how they act; and those actions then change the reality that people then have to deal with. But this dynamic flow of reality--which encompasses both physical causation and mental causation, is different from the relativist view that what I believe reality to be is reality itself; and that a person can have their own reality based upon what their views are.

I will add that this is a great point that you raise here, and a somewhat controversial point, that perhaps started in modern times and in modern culture with Chapter 10 of Thomas Kuhn's famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, where he interjects a metaphysics that is similar to your line of thinking here. Most have rejected this view, for reasons that I have briefly explained here. But his influence was monumental, and in particular influenced with the anti-science attitudes of the 70s and 80s and the post-modernist movement associated with it.
_______________________________________

Is it true that what is good for one person might not be good for another person?

COMMENT: Yes, of course. But human diversity does mean that there is no backdrop of objective reality, including the laws of nature, that provides an ordered context for all humans from which they navigate the world through their free actions.
_______________________________________

I'm not sure if I'm a moral relativist or not but I do know that what is right, or good, or true seems to be influenced by more than just fact.

COMMENT: Well, moral facts and reasoning create their own set of problems and issues. And any sort of moral judgment involves more than just facts about the world; it involves right and wrong action, coupled with human free will. What is objectively morally "right" and "wrong" in complex cases is elusive and controversial, and perhaps relative to some degree. But the fact that our moral intuitions seem to converge in simple cases may suggest that morality generally is in some important sense objective, but just difficult to access.

You can't handle the truth!! As nicholson said.

The truth is that your mind has been messed with since birth. You have been thought reformed and are being controlled in some way. Most history books don't cover what really happened either. So how can you trust anything besides your gut?

And there is a virus and police officers killing people for no reason right now. Thats pretty truthful right now.

Can we just have one thread without that? Just one?

There's a dozen other one to give your opinion in that regard. And notice I said OPION.

Alright. Nice weather we are having.

When I first started this post I wrote about our humanness as being a problem. I think I now need to elaborate. When we were young our mothers may have told us, “don’t step in front of trucks and beware of strangers.” When we were told that we didn’t engage in empirical research to test the truth of those statements. If we had tested the first proposition, we might now be dead. The second proposition though is more problematic. Most of use have either married a stranger or at least dated one and we are still alive to talk about the experience. Many things in life have an immediacy that does not allow for testing while others may not have that same immediacy yet when we are first told no one educates us as to how to differentiate.

What is a lie ?

Pretty much everything.

How do you tell truth from lie ?

Square it with the bible, that's how a christian judges what a lie is.

How does one "Square it with the bible" ?

> Square it with the bible, that's how a christian
> judges what a lie is.

Ah yes, creationism. Dinosaurs co-existing with humans before death entered the world. Slaughter all the Canaanites and other peoples unlike oneself.

All "truth" should be reconciled with those biblical teachings.

Deuteronomy is my go-to book.

The sun is pretty legit though. Hard to disprove the sun.

“The sun is pretty legit though. Hard to disprove the sun.”

I, with some hesitation find this apparently obvious reference to the sun useful to illustrate my point.

In the dark shadows of my Mormon experience I recall a reference in the Book of Abraham about the sun. According to that scripture the sun draws its power from Kolob or some other place near the throne of God. I recall “Mormon scholars” in years past actually defending that scripture. There were a whole bunch of Mormons with varying degrees of intelligence that accepted that as fact. I’m sure it was taught in seminaries.

The obvious isn’t necessarily obvious. I sometimes wonder if deception has more sway in people’s lives than truth?

It’s interesting how much animism made it into Mormon doctrine. There’s the notion that the Earth is a conscious being, as well as the sun. It’s widely believed that all of the planets are conscious, although maybe not so much among astrophysicists. Taking “light” to be a higher consciousness, the Kolob mythology fits into the animist paradigm. Given the problems the church will have with mainstreaming, it would do well to play up its animist and folk magic doctrines. This is safe territory because science can’t really prove them wrong.

The Brutality Of Truth
Truth is brutal. It is non-compromising to circumstance. It is also perceptional. Those who seek to speak the truth at all times will discover that there circle of “so called” friends will be quite small. However the circle of people who respect them will be large.
People are generally taught that the “little white lie” is acceptable if it saves embarrassment or hurt feelings. But is it worth surrendering personal integrity to tell one?
So if I always tell the truth as I see it I will then be prepared for the behavioral consequences of my actions

It absolutely possible that it's impossible to know.