There is a reasoning process from start to fininsh. Sorry for they typos above. — Garrett Travers

Typos are fine - I'm big on making them myself. :cool:

Ok so a reasoning process is fine. I reason that Berlin is my favorite city in the world because I met my wife there and we had some great days and nights travelling around. How valuable is this type of reasoning philosophically?

No, it is not rational if by rational you mean that there was some precise pre-existing order and the shifts in science you mention are transition that are completely regulated by that pre-existing of order. What kind of advance i. knowledge would — Joshs

Joshs... My friend. You're too smart to be saying stuff like this. Reason is : think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic. Do you really mean to imply that Kuhn conveyed to you that revolutions in paradigms happen not as a result of this definition, and all of the behaviors in the sciences that fall into this category?

So imagination, once stirred, often leads to initiative, and initiative to action, and action produces something unexpected for men to contemplate and experience, and, finally, the newest experience throws the recollections of prior experiences into fresh perspective, thus reducing them to the level of mere chronicler's facts, facts whose historical meaning takes its shape from present rather than past interpretations.” — Joshs

This is all a description of the reasoning process. Defer to the studies I posted for Clark and Cosm.

Other than that, can you try to clarify what point you're making with these passages?

The proposition has remained entirely unaddress by anything other than simple opinion that isn't consistent with any modern scientific understanding of nature. — Garrett Travers

I have gone back through all of your posts in this thread and I didn't find any reference to specific sources or references which would provide evidence about a "modern scientific understanding of nature" and how it relates to your position. You are just performing "seems to me" philosophy. I acknowledge I am doing the same, but I haven't made the type of definitive claims you have.

Ok so a reasoning process is fine. I reason that Berlin is my favorite city in the world because I met my wife there and we had some great days and nights travelling around. How valuable is this type of reasoning philosophically? — Tom Storm

It's valuable because you get to understand that you are in fact an independent, co-equal producer of the source of value in the world. And that only a system that respects such, can be considered a valuable one, as those that don't destroy the source of value to sustain themselves. Other than that, nothing really.

I have gone back through all of your posts in this thread and I didn't find any reference to specific sources or references which would provide evidence about a "modern scientific understanding of nature" and how it relates to your position. You are just performing "seems to me" philosophy. I acknowledge I am doing the same, but I haven't made the type of definitive claims you have. — T Clark

No, I posted you some stuff that opens up the doorway to underwstanding the process of conceptualizations and abstractions. I'll post again so you can see it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927039/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.00007/full
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/prefrontal-cortex#:~:text=The%20prefrontal%20cortex%20(PFC)%20plays,prospective%20memory%2C%20and%20cognitive%20flexibility.

It is specifically your reason that uses everything else, not the other way around: — Garrett Travers

Can you provide a quote from the linked source that supports the view that "reason [not the brain or its constituents] uses everything else."

In your experience (accrual of data), values are not conceptual understandings (a conceptual understanding derived from data). You just contradicted yourself. — Garrett Travers

Now you're just being silly.

Can you provide a quote from the linked source that supports the view that "reason [not the brain or its constituents] uses everything else." — ZzzoneiroCosm

No, that's absurd. C'mon, let's not be silly. Reason is the method by which the brain uses all of those functions to create abstractions from data that inform behaviors, and derive values with the collection of more data. And yes, there are some references above that will begin to elucidate this process.

Reason is the method by which the brain uses all of those functions to create abstractions from data that inform behaviors, and derive values with the collection of more data. — Garrett Travers

Again, a source to support this claim?

Now you're just being silly. — T Clark

No, I'm not. This is quite literally you expressing a value, and you developed it through sensory data accrual, no shit. It's a complete contradiction.

t's valuable because you get to understand that you are in fact an independent, co-equal producer of the source of value in the world. And that only a system that respects such, can be considered a valuable one, as those that don't destroy the source of value to sustain themselves. — Garrett Travers

Thanks, that's a bit clearer.

Again, a source to support this claim? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Are you deliberately choosing not to read? Here, let me help. And remember, I said the conditions were that we do this right, no bullshit. So, let's not beat around the bush.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927039/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.00007/full
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/prefrontal-cortex#:~:text=The%20prefrontal%20cortex%20(PFC)%20plays,prospective%20memory%2C%20and%20cognitive%20flexibility.

Start with these, it's a process of understanding what is happening with the brain. Much more where these come from.

Reason is : think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
Do you really mean to imply that Kuhn conveyed to you that revolutions in paradigms happen not as a result of this definition, and all of the behaviors in the sciences that fall into this category? — Garrett Travers

Other than that, can you try to clarify what point you're making with these passages — Garrett Travers

I guess the point I’m making is that we have to make a distinction between formal logic and forms of pragmatic logic. Only pragmatic logic gives us the creative innovations of the sciences as well as
the arts. When we construe harmonies and inferential
compatibilities among unique events, this is different from formal logic , which can only operate on structures that are in some respect absolutely identically repeatable.
Pragmatic logic recognizes that the world doesn’t sit still for us , not even for a moment. We can pretend that the world consists of such identically repeatable structures , but this is only an idealization, a convenience to simply things.

Kuhn’s notion of paradigm change does not rely on formal logic but something closer to the way change
takes place in the arts.

Are you deliberately choosing not to read? Here, let me help. And remember, I said the conditions were that we do this right, no bullshit. So, let's not beat around the bush.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927039/
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncom.2017.00007/full
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/prefrontal-cortex#:~:text=The%20prefrontal%20cortex%20(PFC)%20plays,prospective%20memory%2C%20and%20cognitive%20flexibility.

Start with these, it's a process of understanding what is happening with the brain. Much more where these come from. — Garrett Travers

I took a quick look. I didn't see anything applicable to the questions we are discussing.

We're not getting anywhere. I think we've carried this discussion as far as we can.

I guess the point I’m making is that we have to make a distinction between formal logic and forms of pragmatic logic. Only pragmatic logic gives us the creative innovations of the sciences as well as
the arts. — Joshs

Which is..... Reason! Ding Ding!

compatibilities among unique events, this is different from formal logic , which can only operate on structures that are in some respect absolutely identically repeatable.
Pragmatic logic recognizes that the world doesn’t sit still for us , not even for a moment. We can pretend that the world consists of such identically repeatable structures , but this is only an idealization, a convenience to simply things.

Kuhn’s notion of paradigm change does not rely on formal logic but something closer to the way change
takes place in the arts. — Joshs

This, of course, all true. But, active human thought and logic and reasoning itself isn't strictly formal. Wittgenstein knew that very well. We operate deductively and inductively both, all at the same time in very complex ways. But, reason is involved in all of those ways.

Are you deliberately choosing not to read? Here, let me help. And remember, I said the conditions were that we do this right, no bullshit. So, let's not beat around the bush. — Garrett Travers

I'm asking you to provide a quote, not a collection of sources.

You've made a claim. Now support it with a quote from your sources.

Providing pages and pages of reading material - that isn't an argument.

I took a quick look. I didn't see anything applicable to the questions we are discussing. — T Clark

So, the pfc's function, how the brain differentiates between data signals, and the recuurent neural networks that integrate data have no relevance... Gotcha. Thanks for stopping by!

I thought you used the work capitalism in one of your propositions but now I can't seem to find it. Can you get me to it if you did? Thanks.

I'm asking you to provide a quote, not a collection of sources.

You've made a claim. Now support it with a quote from your sources.

Providing pages and pages of reading material - that isn't an argument. — ZzzoneiroCosm

That's not how this stuff works. There's no such thing as a quote of such a kind. The process is distributed over billions of neurons that compute sensory data, reward, executive function, etc. You have to analyze the entire process through different research. The idea that values and concepts aren't generated by the brain in accordance with sensory data isn't something that is in dispute.

I thought you used the work capitalism in one of your propositions but now I can't seem to find it. Can you get me to it if you did? Thanks. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I didn't at all. But, we can get there once we get past the first proposition.

ZzzoneiroCosm — Garrett Travers

Maybe this will help:

"The activation signature of a concept is a composite of the different types of knowledge of the concept that a person has stored, and each type of knowledge is stored in its own characteristic set of regions"

‘Each time we learn something, we permanently change our brains in a systematic way,’ said Bauer, the study’s lead author. ‘It was exciting to see our study successfully implant the information about extinct animals into the expected locations in the brain’s filing system.’

https://neurosciencenews.com/neuroimaging-concepts-brain-2113/


OR, just open this study and go to the introduction and read it:

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/25/9307

That's not how this stuff works. — Garrett Travers

Okay. You want to prioritize the brain (you say reason, but then you talk about the brain, so I'm more comfortable saying the brain) over the emotions. How do you want to say that? The brain rules the emotions? The brain controls the emotions? The brain creates the emotions?

Some kind of clear formulation of reason's dominion backed up by quotes from your sources....

So, the pfc's function, how the brain differentiates between data signals, and the recuurent neural networks that integrate data have no relevance... Gotcha. — Garrett Travers

The subject on the table is whether the source of human values is based on reason. You say yes. I say no. The articles you linked to have nothing to say about that.

Okay. You want to prioritize the brain (you say reason, but then you talk about the brain, so I'm more comfortable saying the brain) over the emotions. How do you want to say that? The brain rules the emotions? The brain controls the emotions? The brain creates the emotions?

Some kind of clear formulation of reason's dominion backed up by quotes from your sources.... — ZzzoneiroCosm

From what I can gather, the brain controls everything. The brain produces the capacity to reason, which is used to navigate the world in accordance with the data it receieves. How it chooses to navigate the world is predicated on concepts derives from an accumulation of data, Employing those abstractions through behavior leads to more data accrual, and verification or dispensation of those concepts based on successful or failure of said concepts in accordance with a goal. The goal is based on a value derived from the whole process. This is how humans operate and survive in the world.

PFC: "This region is implicated in the most human of behaviors, such as social interaction, moral judgment, fairness, self-control, prediction of the future, and decision making in conflict situations.88-9"

Sensory Data Accrual: "In everyday life, we choose between options with multiple attributes. The attributes of an option (e.g., shoes) can be qualitatively different (aesthetics and expenses) and are associated with positive or negative values. For successful choice behavior, individuals need to integrate the different values into an overall subjective value."

Data Sifting: "People can conceptualize the same action (e.g. ‘riding a bike’) at different levels of abstraction (LOA), where higher LOAs specify the abstract motives that explain why the action is performed (e.g. ‘getting exercise’), while lower LOAs specify the concrete steps that indicate how the action is performed (e.g. ‘gripping handlebars’). Prior neuroimaging studies have shown that why and how questions about actions differentially activate two cortical networks associated with mental-state reasoning and action representation, respectively"

Concept Informed Behavior: ""The activation signature of a concept is a composite of the different types of knowledge of the concept that a person has stored, and each type of knowledge is stored in its own characteristic set of regions"

That's basically what's going on. But, the process is fucking complicated and I believe, once understood, not only verifies Rand's basic ethical code, but allows us to understand ethics altogether.

The subject on the table is whether the source of human values is based on reason. You say yes. I say no. The articles you linked to have nothing to say about that. — T Clark

lol. Be sure to observe the quotes I left from those journals just below your comment. In short, my position is reinforced by data, yours by opinion.

lol. Be sure to observe the quotes I left from those journals just below your comment. In short, my position is reinforced by data, yours by opinion. — Garrett Travers

To repeat - none of the articles you linked to say anything about reason as the source of human values, no matter how ol you l.

From what I can gather, the brain controls everything. — Garrett Travers

Thanks.

So the brain controls reasoning and also anything irrational or emotional in the human system(s)? It controls, in a word, everything in the human system(s)?

From what I can gather, the brain controls everything. — Garrett Travers

Do you concede that the brain is in some sense itself controlled by the variety of incoming stimuli?

So the brain controls reasoning and also anything irrational or emotional in the human system(s)? It controls, in a word, everything in the human system(s)? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, it's not even something that's a question in neuroscience. It controls everything in accordance with its task to maintain homeostasis. Reason is its means of doing so in regards to behavior within the world. Irrationality comes in when one installs a conceptual frame work that values : not logical or reasonable means of acquiring knowledge and informing behaviors. Something humans can be trained to do conceptually.

Do you concede that the brain is in some sense itself controlled by the variety of incoming stimuli? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Influenced, of course. Controlled, no. Other than by it's genetic code, which is more structural integrity, rather than control.