phaedrus

I'm trying to get the diagram to come out better but hopefully you'll get the idea that each layer of abstraction entails the comparison with the criteria for truth (of the thing being perceived). So, at Plane 1 a distinction is made between thing and not thing, the result being a perception that it is true that there is something (see left hand side of Plane 1). At Plane 2 a comparison with the resulting mental states and the form of "n" (also a mental state, in this case what I call the axiomatic concept of "n") is made resulting in the perception of n's. At Plane 3 the instances (as mental states)of the form "n" are quantified to perceive the truth of the existence of 3 n's.

Ok, let's see. These mental states are they mental states as in those that can be tied down certain physical processes in the brain or are just filters/phases in our thinking process, in which case the so-called correspondence between these phases is irrelevant, since it (i.e, truth) all can be boiled down to the "play" of understanding and the web-of-beliefs & its interaction with the world/sensory inputs.

For an individual, truth is manufactured by nervous system activity which is impacted by internal and external (including societal) events.

What do you mean by "internal events" here?

I've been thinking about this. Maybe its more accurately terms a Realacrum - unless you think we're really brains in vats!

Havent really closed the book on that one.....as of now it is reality versus zillions of matrixes which are a result of the self-others interaction.

John Page

Yes, kind of. Let's try a mental state as "Snapshot of activity in a specific brain area" rather than processes themselves.

I think the brain process itself is well nigh impossible to represent with conventional process flow diagrams or functional decomposition analyses because each cell (or even dendrite/axon) can be its own process that operates asynchronously.

Of course, my diagram is only a conceptual schema. At each abstraction plane I am suggest that our brain material performs a comparison/detection operation that results in, say, mental state R1a (a sensory input at, say, cells a through b) being reflected in mental state r1a (a comparison detection result found in, say, cells c through d).

Tricky stuff, this, conceptualizing conceptualization! Hope the above is clear.
Internal to the nervous system of an individual.
Infinite cinema genre regress! Seriously, I think the reality is of a lagre number of matrices generated within the mind as it tries to outguess the future behavior of reality - imagination as time travel mechanism. More prognostication on imagination at this link .

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

Yes, kind of. Let's try a mental state as "Snapshot of activity in a specific brain area" rather than processes themselves.

I think the brain process itself is well nigh impossible to represent with conventional process flow diagrams or functional decomposition analyses because each cell (or even dendrite/axon) can be its own process that operates asynchronously.

Of course, my diagram is only a conceptual schema. At each abstraction plane I am suggest that our brain material performs a comparison/detection operation that results in, say, mental state R1a (a sensory input at, say, cells a through b) being reflected in mental state r1a (a comparison detection result found in, say, cells c through d).

Tricky stuff, this, conceptualizing conceptualization! Hope the above is clear.

Umm you are proposing they are different parts of the brain which are assigned to these different levels of abstraction/analysis of the same message. Hypothesis?

Are these states "consciously" corresponding to give rise to "truth" or "truth" is an effect of the process as a whole?

Internal to the nervous system of an individual.

That is obvious from the internal usage...but what are these events that impact the manufacturing of 'truth'?

With regard to reality.....i will just leave it at reality.

jp

John Page

Different parts of the brain, yes. Assigned, no. IMO brain events occur on an interactive or event driven basis. No "Operating System" as conceived for computers.

Hypothesis? Very much so! What I've tried to do, though, is draw together the metaphysical issue of how something is something with my sketchy knowledge of cognition. IMO it is the mind/brain's cognition system that "deems" something exist by recognizing it as "true" against the axiomatic concept of that thing.

Hence my approach is different than, say, binary computing and many metaphysical theories, where truth is defined a priori.
My model does not extend to any theory of how we consciously think we know truth, merely how the brain's subjective "truth" might (conceptually) be made.
I view events as being linked by causal chains. Now, I accept that cause/effect is an interpretation of reality by the human mind, but I see this as a strength of the model because the "truth" of cause and effect relationships is recognized by the brain mechanisms that impute the cause and effect relation in the first place! Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Yes, agreed, lest its dragons rear their ugly heads.

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

Different parts of the brain, yes. Assigned, no. IMO brain events occur on an interactive or event driven basis. No "Operating System" as conceived for computers.

Any part of the brain can do any task with regard to assimilating the message/truth ?

What I've tried to do, though, is draw together the metaphysical issue of how something is something with my sketchy knowledge of cognition. IMO it is the mind/brain's cognition system that "deems" something exist by recognizing it as "true" against the axiomatic concept of that thing.

Umm...lets see where does the feedback loop come into picture then - which could change the axiomatic concept itself?

My model does not extend to any theory of how we consciously think we know truth, merely how the brain's subjective "truth" might (conceptually) be made.

But we dont know how truth is made, in the sense the very foundation of the belief structure...how can we go to the next stage...

In any case, my question Are these states "consciously" corresponding to give rise to "truth" or "truth" is an effect of the process as a whole? would be still pertinent since you stated "truth arises from a correspondence between mental states"

I view events as being linked by causal chains. Now, I accept that cause/effect is an interpretation of reality by the human mind, but I see this as a strength of the model because the "truth" of cause and effect relationships is recognized by the brain mechanisms that impute the cause and effect relation in the first place! Kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

But what are these internal events which impact the manufacturing process as opposed to external events?

jp

John Page

Hi jp:
I had a zillion interruptions concocting my response, hope it is sensible - I look forward to your questions.
No - as we have discussed before there are specialized areas for certain language functions, others for analyzing the raw sound information that can be the "carrier" for speech.

Because areas of the brain remember/absorb/learn prior experiences I think they become specialized.

Brain cells appear fairly homogenous, though. I'd be interested if you knew of any study that indicated whether memory is in whole or in part a function of individual cells or whether memory comprises a network of cells.
Point taken. While recognition of something matching an axiomatic concept (a mental entity) occurs based on sense boundary data, you're asking how the axiomatic concept gets created and modified/updated. My mental model of this is one or more brain cells that retain the sense image (s1) for comparison with the next sense image (s2), the difference between the sense images (s1 - s2) being the result of a comparison/detection operation. (s1 - s2) now becomes an archetype/axiomatic concept at the first layer of abstraction from the sense boundary layer.

To answer your question, I don't think the brain remembers all the sense data its exposed to and the feedback loop you refer to is a mechanism that determines which axiomatic concepts are most important/relevant. By way of example, when concepts are sensed that meet the conditions for danger (that have been learned and for which one might suppose there are a number of axiomatic concepts!) this might flag that sense data for priority/real time attention by presenting data to another part of the brain (which becomes that part of the brain's sense data).
No, so we keep guessing until we get it! IMO you don't need to believe anything for the truth to be made. Belief, or the need for belief, creeps in when we realize that all is not what it seems. Of course, we can believe that truth is this thing, that thing or another thing but there remains the truth of our belief. I contend that our belief about the truth of something stems from the degree to which external and internal sense data match the axiomatic concept(s) for the something concerned.

For example, "This car is red". To determine the truthfulness of this statement our mind would unravel the language that points to the concepts for car and red. Having comprehended the question our brain seeks the impressions in our senses that belies the appearance of a car (there may be more than one) and whether the color detected in unison with the car is red. This description is necessarily simplified - cars can come in many shapes and sizes and red can come in many shades.

If someone else has proposed the statement then commonality of concepts is a prerequisite for sensible intersubjective agreement or disagreement.

Summary: Belief does not drive truth, we must necessarily know something before we can choose to deny it or disavow it. All that remains, then, is to argue over what the something really is.
For us to consciously know a truth then that truth must be presented at the sense boundary that demarcs conscious activity and non-conscious activity. A truth "There is a red car" is still a result of comparing two or more mental states to determine their degree of correspondence.

The area this might get complicated is make-believe. It seems we have the capacity to imagine "If it were true that all men are mortal...." I don't see any difficulty, however, with brain activity producing scenarios that we assume to be true/real/factual for the sake of argument. Dreams, IMO, demonstrate that the brain has this "what if" capability unconsciously as well as consciously.
Brain activity. It seems so obvious to me that there must be events either side of the internal/external boundary line between the mind/brain and non-mind/brain - for example because of our ability to reflect/internalize/introspect, that perhaps I need to question it.

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Yes. I agree...I've tried to find some other way of defining 'truth,' but the meaning seems to meander its way back to consensus, as you suggest.

Agreed. Truth is part of a creative process, both within the brain, and between brains.

This suggests that 'truth,' as a product of interpretation(s) by interpreters, is therefore by definition plural (not monolithic).

Yes...so the 'truth,' besides being pluralistic, is also politicised? The truth, on one level perhaps, is itself a form of power?

Ah, yes...in some cultures, then, the 'truth' would be whatever the strongest? the loudest? the most powerful/influential? said it was. Which helps to address the issue I raised regarding who gets to say what is and is not true. I wonder how much this approach to truth-production holds today (or if it does at all), and in which contexts. I also wonder if even in the most seemingly objective enquiries into knowledge-building (such as science), there might not be traces of the old maxim at work? What an odd thought!

Absolutely...I agree that a better way to look at it would be something along the lines of 'functioning 'properly' for a specific purpose...I would also guess that this is where relativism might come into the picture? (for both proper function and even for truth itself)

Truth as being relative to context, value systems...

Thanks for your response to my posted queries, John Page...much appreciated!

phaedrus

John

*still reeling from the excessive praying to lord bacchus yday*

as we have discussed before there are specialized areas for certain language functions, others for analyzing the raw sound information that can be the "carrier" for speech.

Because areas of the brain remember/absorb/learn prior experiences I think they become specialized.

But language/speech need not be essential in the assimilation of "truth". For example, the truth/fact that sitting on a hot stove causes pain could be learnt/understood ....

My question was more in the direction of whether or not there are specific parts of the brain that perform specific tasks in the process of assimilation...

Brain cells appear fairly homogenous, though. I'd be interested if you knew of any study that indicated whether memory is in whole or in part a function of individual cells or whether memory comprises a network of cells.

From Psyche...
A New Theoretical Framework For Explicit and Implicit Memory

and also....The Death of Implicit Memory

No, so we keep guessing until we get it! IMO you don't need to believe anything for the truth to be made. Belief, or the need for belief, creeps in when we realize that all is not what it seems. Of course, we can believe that truth is this thing, that thing or another thing but there remains the truth of our belief. I contend that our belief about the truth of something stems from the degree to which external and internal sense data match the axiomatic concept(s) for the something concerned.

That is applicable for instances where the being is acquiring a new set of truths (exp a student learning for the first time about quantum physics).

Truth is made through communication between the members of the society/groups that we are part of ....there could be few individuals who hold beliefs/truths that none of the groups subscribe to. If these individuals are able to successfully convince the groups/soceity about these beliefs/truths, then we have a belief that becomes the "norm".

Belief does not drive truth, we must necessarily know something before we can choose to deny it or disavow it. All that remains, then, is to argue over what the something really is.

But belief determines what is true, right?

For us to consciously know a truth then that truth must be presented at the sense boundary that demarcs conscious activity and non-conscious activity. A truth "There is a red car" is still a result of comparing two or more mental states to determine their degree of correspondence.

Not talking about "consciously" knowing the truth....referring to the mental states that you mentioned.....are these mental states "consciously" corresponding to each other in order to manufacture "truth". Are these states aware of the whole process and the objective of this process and hence are talking to each other, comparing notes and giving the verdict about the "truth". Or, is the whole process not breakable into these different parts and can be seen/understood only as a homogeneous mixture/network where everything is integrated and there is starting point.

Brain activity. It seems so obvious to me that there must be events either side of the internal/external boundary line between the mind/brain and non-mind/brain - for example because of our ability to reflect/internalize/introspect, that perhaps I need to question it.

External - sensory inputs .....and interal - processing ? By processing you are referring to the assimilation/evaluation process the mind is going through when faced with these inputs? The perception of these inputs => can they be different based on the individual's web-of-beliefs and hence impact the internal process/events?

jp

John Page

"The truth" as some universal piece of cheese is politicised. Control over belief (agitprop) is power over the believers - hence religions, for example. BTW I'm a "By the people, for the people" person.
The media circus facilitates, titilates the minds of the communicees to gain their attention and present the facts in a believable way. This is the competition for truth of relevance, defining issues up or down.
Not at all - helps me to externalize what I really think.

Cheers, John

John Page

Agreed.
Yes, as per my previous examples. Note: This does not mean to say that all parts of the brain are function/task specific. Why? Two reasons - one is that for brain function to develop implies there must be some "flexibility" to function in context with the situations presented. Second, recovery from brain damage proves that we can relearn "specific function" into new brain areas.
Many thanks.
Proving that truth is manufactured within the individuals (a person's truths) as well as manufactured between individuals (intersubjective, public, truths). Do you agree?
Belief is what we think is true. Humans can be contradictory though, reconciling their body of knowledge with their beliefs. IMO one can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time within the mind/brain - in which case which one is the truth?
Not quite - there is a truth-telling process that compares two or more states in order to derive their degree of correspondence. i.e. it is the truth-telling process that does the manufacturing.
No, I think of a state as a snapshot rather than an entity that might be consciously aware (although it may be a snapshot of an entity which is consciously aware). IOW I'm leaving consciousness out of it for now!
Yes to your question about processing but my wording was designed to admit that some sensory input is internal (a.k.a. feedback) and some is from outside the mind/brain.

This is relevant to the second paper you linked to on Implicit Memory - the appearance of implicit memory IMO is memory of or from previous experience. In my model this is accomodated by internal sensory input.

Final note on this topic. I think input is not always the right way to conceive of the mind process, it is too passive. I believe there are processes that actively seek results/goals/values.

Cheers, John