The Probability your cognitive faculties produce mostly true beliefs given Evolutionary Naturalism

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yeah, sure. As soon as you can come up with a way for humans to bypass their perception, we can start talking about this fact being a flaw of a certain idea. Until then, instead of chopping off the branch I´m sitting on you are sawing off the tree we all sit on.

You are not reading what I am writing again. Please show me where I said this is a 'flaw of a certain idea' alone? You were the one that decided this somehow shows our perception to be working. You are merely obfuscating the discussion here. How does what we perceive validate our perception itself? You have failed to answer this dismally.

It invalidates your implicit assertion that this is a problem exclusive to a certain view, and that your view is the solution to it.

Again, I never said this. I said it was a problem of naturalism. I never presented my alternative nor claimed it solved this flaw. You in fact agreed with me when you said that this life as a dream would be indistinguishable. You seem to keep trying to commit the fallacy of Bulverism, that my own background some how invalidates what I say. I find it strange.

...whereas you actually pointed out an inherent issue coming with the human condition.

Not really, only if you presuppose Naturalistic notions here or deny supernatural aspects to existence.

...and faith can be shown to be a reliable means of epistemology?

Not to a person who does not have faith, no. But as a Christian, to me the only thing really Real is God.

You´ve got that half-right, at best.

Then show me how naturalism is thus consistent or alternately that experience based on it is a valid representation of reality? So far you have singularly failed to do so and only posted conceptions such as not being able to differentiate the actuality of experience from dreams which largely support my contentions.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

That smells like a genetic fallacy.
Reasoning, which is a brain function, has physical underpinnings in the brain. It seems like you are saying that because it has physical underpinnings, it can't be reliable.

Your assertion makes no sense.

This is a petitio principii, assuming reliability and based thereon asserting it to be a brain function. If we cannot establish logical causality, then how can we make such a determination? Please see my above response to Variant or look up the Argument from Reason and Logical Causality for more insight.

No.

Look it up. I remember trying to educate you on how Occam's razor works to no avail, so I am not going through such frustration again.

Sure. A hallucination is not that. There's no receiving of data. There's only imagination of data.

There is no difference in neural physiology between a real perception and a hallucination. Both activate the same pathways and are perceived in like manner. So yes, there is receiving of data, only not observed from outside.

 

[quatona]

How does what we perceive validate our perception itself?

You tell me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is a petitio principii, assuming reliability and based thereon asserting it to be a brain function.

I don't need to "assume" anything.
Our cognitive faculties are demonstrably reliable. How else would your computer work?
Reasoning demonstrably is also a brain function, which is a physical thing with physical underpinnings.

There is no difference in neural physiology between a real perception and a hallucination. Both activate the same pathways and are perceived in like manner. So yes, there is receiving of data, only not observed from outside.

No. There is the illusion of receiving of data.
And acting upon it will quickly show how unreliable that data is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not to a person who does not have faith, no. But as a Christian, to me the only thing really Real is God.

Isn't it ironic then, that this god is one of the things that can't be shown to be real?

 

[quatona]

Then show me how naturalism is thus consistent or alternately that experience based on it is a valid representation of reality?

Personally, I check it out on a case to case basis. Our methods to validate our perceptions within this assumed reality have good and reliable results.
Now, since your question seems to be: How would you prove to an epistemological nihilist (or solipsists or other fundamental skeptic towards human brain functions) that our brain is reliable? - I can´t. And neither can you, no matter what assumptions, beliefs and faiths you appeal to (they are brought to you by your brain, too, after all).
Until such a fundamentalist epistemological nihilist jumps off a huge cliff with reference to the fact that reality isn´t actually real, I am quite relaxed in face of their skepticism.

So far you have singularly failed to do so and only posted conceptions such as not being able to differentiate the actuality of experience from dreams which largely support my contentions.

Neither of us has an answer that will satisfy an epistemological nihilist.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

You tell me.

You made this contention, not me. I never said it did.

Personally, I check it out on a case to case basis. Our methods to validate our perceptions within this assumed reality have good and reliable results.

How do you know this? What methods? Perception cannot validate perception itself, which is the only answer you have so far presented for this proposition.

Now, since your question seems to be: How would you prove to an epistemological nihilist (or solipsists or other fundamental skeptic towards human brain functions) that our brain is reliable? - I can´t.

So we are in agreement. Naturalism cannot validate itself or be shown reliable.

And neither can you, no matter what assumptions, beliefs and faiths you appeal to (they are brought to you by your brain, too, after all).

Petitio Principii again.

Until such a fundamentalist epistemological nihilist jumps off a huge cliff with reference to the fact that reality isn´t actually real, I am quite relaxed in face of their skepticism.

Fair enough, I would be too.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't need to "assume" anything.
Our cognitive faculties are demonstrably reliable. How else would your computer work?

So all beliefs are true? No one ever makes mistakes? There are no delusions or hallucinations? No mistaken propositions held?

Reasoning demonstrably is also a brain function, which is a physical thing with physical underpinnings

False. It has been inductively surmised to be so by those starting with a naturalistic materialist mindset, but there is no conclusive evidence to this effect in Neurology.

No. There is the illusion of receiving of data.
And acting upon it will quickly show how unreliable that data is.

Really? Schizophrenics don't realise this, nor those with delusions. Others may, but are they not also labouring under their own delusion? There is no physiologic difference, so if you think our perceptions validate themselves by our 'reasoning', then so does a Schizophrenics by materially-derived rationality. Congratulations, you have solved mental health issues by arguing them as valid as our own.

 

[quatona]

You made this contention, not me. I never said it did.

No, I didn´t. I am very clear about the limitations of validating our perception.
The argument you presented associated that problem to evolution theory etc., and it did so by a mere claim. My initial question for the logic behind it hasn´t been answered.
As far as I am concerned, I see that as an inescapable logical problem that affects all worldviews alike.

How do you know this? What methods?

As I told you, reality is the frame of reference within which I am testing the validity of my perception. The frame of reference itself cannot be tested, unless you postulate that perception isn´t part of reality.

Perception cannot validate perception itself,

Exactly. Perception cannot validate itself, no matter by what process it has been brought to us. Now it´s your turn to tell me how to validate our perception and brain functions without using them - or else your "naturalism yada yada" talk remains vacuous.

Fair enough, I would be too.

Then you better stop arguing from that hypothetical position.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

No, I didn´t. I am very clear about the limitations of validating our perception.

Yet claims it 'works' somehow, which you have not justified at all.

The argument you presented associated that problem to evolution theory etc., and it did so by a mere claim. My initial question for the logic behind it hasn´t been answered.

A lot hides in the term 'mere'. Not by a claim, but the logical implication of the propositions of Naturalism. So answered in my opinion, as you obfuscate while acknowledging the logic otherwise. I have no idea what you want me to "answer" here in addition. Please enlighten me.

As I told you, reality is the frame of reference within which I am testing the validity of my perception. The frame of reference itself cannot be tested, unless you postulate that perception isn´t part of reality.

Exactly. Perception cannot validate itself, no matter by what process it has been brought to us.

So we are in agreement.

Now it´s your turn to tell me how to validate our perception and brain functions without using them - or else your "naturalism yada yada" talk remains vacuous.

Well, not vacuous as it invalidates the basis to maybe consider Naturalism at all, regardless if I could or could not validate my perception or brain functioning. So for me to tell you anything here is moot to the argument (I have told you how before though, as it is Faith-based trust in God, which would of course be unacceptable without a predication on said Faith, so pointless in your estimation).

Then you better stop arguing from that hypothetical position.

Never did. You merely ascribed it to me as your best estimation of what my position would be. It would however be the logical progression for a naturalist to take, the Acta est Fabula of their worldview.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So all beliefs are true? No one ever makes mistakes? There are no delusions or hallucinations? No mistaken propositions held?

"Reliable" isn't synonymous with "infallible".

False.

No, true.

It has been inductively surmised to be so by those starting with a naturalistic materialist mindset, but there is no conclusive evidence to this effect in Neurology.

What do you think "braindead" means?

Really? Schizophrenics don't realise this, nor those with delusions.

I think the fact that we even have a word for these psychiatric conditions, says enough to prove the point.

I also think the fact that we can pull someone out of psychotic episodes by using medication that regulates brain chemistry, also says enough to prove the point about the very real physical underpinnings of cognitive faculties.

Others may, but are they not also labouring under their own delusion?

You really can't figure that out by yourself?

There is no physiologic difference, so if you think our perceptions validate themselves by our 'reasoning'

I didn't say that.
Our perceptions are validated by their ability to produce succesfull results.

ps: i have a feeling that this is turning into the nonsense presupositionals the like of Sye Ten likes to spout. Why do I expect that we'll soon get to the "you can't know anything without god"?

Congratulations, you have solved mental health issues by arguing them as valid as our own.

Mental health, ey?

Funny. By strawmanning what I said, you just succesfully undermined your own point concerning the physical underpinnings of brain processes.

 

[quatona]

Yet claims it 'works' somehow, which you have not justified at all.

Yes, I did tell you what I mean by "it works".
If feeling pain when dropping a rock on your toe isn´t sufficient justification for concluding "dropping this rock resulted in pain" for you, then I guess I can´t help you.

A lot hides in the term 'mere'. Not by a claim, but the logical implication of the propositions of Naturalism.

It´s not a logical implication of naturalism, it is a logical implication of a fact that validating perception and thinking is necessarily self-referential.

So answered in my opinion,

Yeah, but "in my opinion" isn´t really suggesting that you are outside human perception etc.

So we are in agreement.

As far as this statement is concerned. We aren´t in agreement as to why that is.

Well, not vacuous as it invalidates the basis to maybe consider Naturalism at all, regardless if I could or could not validate my perception or brain functioning. So for me to tell you anything here is moot to the argument (I have told you how before though, as it is Faith-based trust in God, which would of course be unacceptable without a predication on said Faith, so pointless in your estimation).

So, IOW you have the same problem a naturalist has: You need to declare something to be the basis for your perception to be reliable - without being able to prove or substantiate that assumption, and without being able show that you can bypass the very faculty that you want to validate.

On another note, you always seem to conflate "validation a perception" and "validating perception".

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

"Reliable" isn't synonymous with "infallible".

Then please show how it can be reliable then.

I think the fact that we even have a word for these psychiatric conditions, says enough to prove the point.

By that logic, the fact that we have a word for Soul or God proves it. This merely proves concept, but you somehow can differentiate on purely physical grounds whether the data we receive is valid or not. Pray tell how?

I also think the fact that we can pull someone out of psychotic episodes by using medication that regulates brain chemistry, also says enough to prove the point about the very real physical underpinnings of cognitive faculties.

We can't. Psychiatric medication only controls symptoms. It does not alter thoughtform, it doesn't cure psychotic states. Otherwise we could have just given people medication and released them. No, psychiatry uses a multimodal approach of symptomatic control with medication coupled with Psychologic techniques like Cognitive behaviour therapy etc. to try and correct thought form and get people to essentially reason themselves out of their delusions.

You really can't figure that out by yourself?

Please enlighten me how you would go about disproving your own delusion? Bear in mind that a part of the psychiatric definition of a delusion is a fixed false belief.

I didn't say that.
Our perceptions are validated by their ability to produce succesfull results.

ps: i have a feeling that this is turning into the nonsense presupositionals the like of Sye Ten likes to spout. Why do I expect that we'll soon get to the "you can't know anything without god"?

How can they be validated by results if our only way to see such results are by yet to be validated perception? Classical petitio principii here.

Mental health, ey?

Funny. By strawmanning what I said, you just succesfully undermined your own point concerning the physical underpinnings of brain processes.

Whatever are you going on about? I have done nothing of the sort. I am a doctor specialising in Anaesthesia. Neuronal function, awareness and pain are my areas of expertise and if you can show me how reasoning is solely derived from brain function I would love to see it. So far Medicine has not even remotely been able to show the physiological underpinings of thought, only the depolarisation of nerves and broad areas of the brain being somehow associated. This hardly shows it derived therefrom, in fact often it seems incongruous as in mental illness fMRI scan activity. Such a belief can only be reached if you start with the proposition that thought MUST only be physically present therein. This is inductively derived and poor science, but luckily Neurologists seldom make such spectacular claims outside of pop-science articles.
I used to work in psychiatry as well and I must say you have a fairly ridiculous overestimation of its efficacy.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Yes, I did tell you what I mean by "it works".
I feeling pain when dropping a rock on your toe isn´t sufficient justification for concluding "dropping this rock resulted in pain" for you, then I guess I can´t help you.

Your Petitio Principii again.

It´s not a logical implication of naturalism, it is a logical implication of a fact that validating perception and thinking is necessarily self-referential.

This is specious nitpickery. Naturalism implies this would be the only way to validate it and thus renders itself incaple of being so validated. Why on earth accept something which undercuts its only reason to be accepted as such?

Yeah, but "in my opinion" isn´t really suggesting that you are outside human perception etc.

I am not, nor have I claimed to be.

So, IOW you have the same problem a naturalist has: You need to declare something to be the basis for your perception to be reliable - without being able to prove or substantiate that assumption, and without being able show that you can bypass the very faculty that you want to validate.

Nope. I have evidence that is sufficient to me. A relationship with a Living God, which is more than enough. From your perspective I am unable to prove it, true, but from mine it is proven and in fact far more definite than any musings whatsoever. If you had faith, perhaps you would understand, but as such I don't expect you to. As I said, my belief is very much tangential to the thread and does not alter one iota to my argument nor support another's contention in any way. Tu quoque fallacy or call it Bulverism, both would apply to your thinking here.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then please show how it can be reliable then.

Quid, I surmise that DogmaHunter thinks that because we can build the Large Hadron Collider and "measure out," so to speak, a Higgs Boson particle, then the reliability of our minds is demonstrated sufficiently. And this sufficiency in our ability to create credible explanations of the universe without God also means there really is no God.

2PhiloVoid

 

[ExodusMe]

Quid, I surmise that DogmaHunter thinks that because we can build the Large Hadron Collider and "measure out," so to speak, a Higgs Boson particle, then the reliability of our minds is demonstrated sufficiently. And this sufficiency in our ability to create credible explanations of the universe without God also means there really is no God.

2PhiloVoid

That might be a good argument for why naturalism & evolution (taken together) are false, but it isn't a good argument for why our cognitive faculties are reliable as the OP shows that N&E taken together cannot produce reliable cognitive faculties or even mostly reliable.

if that is @DogmaHunter response, he would essentially be saying "our cognitive faculties are reliable, because our cognitive faculties are reliable" lol...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Then please show how it can be reliable then.

By its results. By their ability to produce succesfull results.

By that logic, the fact that we have a word for Soul or God proves it. This merely proves concept, but you somehow can differentiate on purely physical grounds whether the data we receive is valid or not. Pray tell how?

One is a scientific identification of demonstrable mental health problems in reality, including treatments to counter and/or diminish them. The other is nothing like that.

We can't. Psychiatric medication only controls symptoms.

No. Anti-psychotic medicine are pretty effective in ending psychotic episodes.
The longer someone remains psychotic, the more chance of brain damage - which, ironically, has detrimental effect on cognitive faculties.

It does not alter thoughtform, it doesn't cure psychotic states. Otherwise we could have just given people medication and released them. No, psychiatry uses a multimodal approach of symptomatic control with medication coupled with Psychologic techniques like Cognitive behaviour therapy etc. to try and correct thought form and get people to essentially reason themselves out of their delusions.

That is just false. The cognitive therapies are done in an attempt to reverse the damaging effects of psychosis. It is also part of preventive therapy so that people suffering from schizofrenia, for example, learn to recognise the signs of entering a new psychosis - so that they can start up medication immediatly and not wait until the psychosis is full blown accute.

How can they be validated by results if our only way to see such results are by yet to be validated perception? Classical petitio principii here.

I note that you didn't comment on the Sye Ten remark. I also note that this question here falls completely in line with Sye Ten style nonsense.

Care to comment?

Whatever are you going on about? I have done nothing of the sort.

Mental health.

To mention that, seems like an admission that you agree that faulty cognitive faculties are a health problem. Which implies that cognitive faculties have physical underpinnings in the brain.

I am a doctor specialising in Anaesthesia. Neuronal function, awareness and pain are my areas of expertise and if you can show me how reasoning is solely derived from brain function I would love to see it.

All the available evidence suggests that reasoning is what the brain does.
So that's what I'm going with.

If you wish to suggest some other mysterious thing as the underpinning of reasoning, by my guest. Don't forget the supportive evidence.

Let's turn it around maybe...
So, what, in your opinion, does the brain do - if not thinking, reasoning, etc?

So far Medicine has not even remotely been able to show the physiological underpinings of thought, only the depolarisation of nerves and broad areas of the brain being somehow associated. This hardly shows it derived therefrom, in fact often it seems incongruous as in mental illness fMRI scan activity. Such a belief can only be reached if you start with the proposition that thought MUST only be physically present therein.

I have no reason to think that "thought" is present or happening anywhere else.
And professionals don't seem to think so either. Why else would they put people under a brain scanner when they wish to find out why they excel at math, for example?

I used to work in psychiatry as well and I must say you have a fairly ridiculous overestimation of its efficacy.

I never made any claims of general efficacy.
Someone extremely close to me suffers from chronic paranoid psychosis.
The only thing that helps in controlling those episodes (and ending accute ones) are anti-psychotics.

 

[ExodusMe]

Cognitive faculties produce somewhat reliable information about the world (reliable enough to improve fitness astronomically), but are not entirely reliable given that they lead directly to incorrect conclusions all the time.

It's not an either/or proposition. That which is not entirely reliable is not therefore completely unreliable.

Without constant conscious study and careful thinking our faculties are in fact not very reliable at all. It requires a lot of cross checking, failure, and dead ends, to be effective, much like evolution itself.

The fact is that brains can be pretty unreliable. Look at Alvin himself, he's got a high functioning one and he can't get out of his own way with this absurd conclusion.

It seems like you are admitting that your cognitive faculties are unreliable in which case you have a defeater for your belief that your beliefs are true. This means you cannot rationally accept N&E (or any of your beliefs for that matter). The argument does not state that your cognitive faculties are completely unreliable. It only states that they cannot produce mostly true beliefs on N&E (if you reply stating "but they do produce mostly true beliefs - this is an argument for why N&E is not true - not that you have proven N&E can produce reliable cognitive faculties).

Where do you go from here?

 

[variant]

It seems like you are admitting that your cognitive faculties are unreliable in which case you have a defeater for your belief that your beliefs are true.

I am saying that human brains are observably unreliable at producing true beliefs on their own. The part of my brain that would be produced via evolution is notoriously bad at doing so on it's own. The unassisted man would indeed find itself with a lot of misconceptions about reality.

Thankfully this is not the state we find ourselves in, alone, lacking in knoledge or information from others and many brains in the past all working on the same problems.

We have indeed found systems that are much more reliable than the single unassisted human brain. And, we have done so by working within the world for a long time using the parts of our brains that are reliable and trying to deal with where they would be unreliable.

This is why we develop systems like logic, rationality science ect to try to deal with their weaknesses. The social aspect of brains is their strength, which is of course another thing we should expect from evolved brains.

That is the problem with the analysis. The strength of the human brain isn't epistemology. Evolution wouldn't have yielded anything other than a rudimentary epistemology. The strength of brains is observation, reaction, prediction, it's social nature and communication/language. None of these things are things that could not evolve.

Even so, and even with all that, humans are still often coming to incorrect beliefs all the time about things, so, it is at best a work in progress.

This means you cannot rationally accept N&E (or any of your beliefs for that matter). The argument does not state that your cognitive faculties are completely unreliable. It only states that they cannot produce mostly true beliefs on N&E (if you reply stating "but they do produce mostly true beliefs - this is an argument for why N&E is not true - not that you have proven N&E can produce reliable cognitive faculties).

Where do you go from here?

I don't rely only on my own brain to produce beliefs, but rather on systems that are designed by brains with lots of trial and error, feedback, cross checks ect.

 

[variant]

You misconstrue. For rationality to exist, then 'A therefore B' or 'B following from A' must be a true causal relationship accepted on account of our reasoning. If 'A therefore C' could just as well have been the case or 'A therefore not B' if the genes had fallen differently, then we cannot determine if this is the case. It thus throws all our rational decision making and logical relations into doubt if we materially derive our reason.

Logic is a linguistic description of the reality we find ourselves in. It is made out of more basic parts of our ability to describe things.

It is not that you can't get logic from a brain built to adapt to environments and so forth, it is that we cannot therefore have faith in our conclusions if that is the case; and the only reason to hold the proposition would be on the grounds of our own reasoning which we have thus fatally undercut.

We don't have to have faith. You can observe whether or not your descriptions work out.

The only way this argument works is if you don't think brains can evolve that can handle this type of problem.

So, you would have to establish that evolved brains can not possibly observe the consequences of their thoughts, beliefs, and actions. It would be hard to demonstrate such a thing in my opinion.

This means that we cannot thus consider it rational as something is only rational if derived from rationality, from definitive logical causality which we can no longer establish as such.

Rationality is established by observation of using rationality in practice.

If I hit my head and believe myself English, this is irrational, but if I think myself English because my neuronal functioning happens to be arranged in this manner, then this is functionally the same. It would only be rational if we reached the conclusion by logical implication, which solely materially-derived thought process negates.

You would have to support the idea that material can't give rise to language, observation and logic. I don't think that is supported anywhere here.