Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

The Cohesive Reality

Philosophy Forum
» Epistemology
» The Cohesive Reality

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

[CENTER]COHESIVE REALITY[/CENTER]

[CENTER][CENTER]"The Truth is the Truth"[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Whatsoever exist remains fixed in the concrete substance of its designated existence. The vital essence of life and the experiential awareness thereof is the product of that which does not depend on those who experience it. Therefore whosoever exist exists solely on the basis of that which does not rely on him. For who among men has chosen to exist? The will of man is therefore disqualified in the establishment of meaning and purpose. One cannot see beyond the limitation of the experience of seeing. One cannot hear beyond the limitations of the experience of hearing. All these things were predefined for us. Should we now attempt to take what was predefined for us to redefine existence?

Nonetheless, in an attempt to configure meaning and purpose man sought to subject the substance of reality to the finite limitations of their inadequate minds. Seeking to lay hold of that which exceeds their grasps, man devised to conceptualize life; identifying the essential meaning of it through the inconsistency of generic ideas, abstracted from the deep sense of uncertainty which proceeds from the fear of the unknown. As a result, the opinions of man assumed the position of that which defines him. Man chose not, yet he is, and in being what he is, his opinions are therefore deprived of the power, right, and privilege of defining him.

Truth is therefore not relative nor is it a concept. On the contrary it is the source which conceptualized all things. The Truth is involuntary, contrary to and without choice and not subjected to control of the will. It strips man of his assumed power and renders him utterly dependant. Therefore man cannot define the Truth the Truth defines him. Existence is experienced exclusively on the premise of Life. This essence of tangible awareness substantiates the direct realization of existence to those who experience it. Existence communicates the Truth, for it is immune to dissimulation. The concrete actuality of a thing is contingent upon the Truth, for that's what the Truth is, reality. The cohesive reality of the Truth is inseparable from those who experience it. A thing can only exist in reality and sustained through it being actual. The very essence of the Truth demands that we acknowledge it. We cannot believe something and it becomes True, it must be True first then we believe.

The Truth defines all things. Everything dwells within boundaries of the It and is restrained to Its authority and rule. Before cognitive man every experience existence it was fixed and firmly established. It is the platform by which all things are conveyed. But error is summoned when we try to define our existence through philosophical means rather than allowing existence to speak to us, granting us the gift to grasp its firm and profound meaning. To discard all preconceived notions and recognized that we are all in the fetal state of understanding, without true knowledge and that every man is a liar, by default, because he has not the means to define himself.

The Truth is free from imperfection and the contamination of relative ideas and notions, because it embodies existence and personifies it. The verity of our incapability of defining the Truth does not make the Truth meaningless. The Truth cannot be defined by us it can only be Acknowledged. We must recognize the right, authority, and status of the Truth, by expressing the gratitude of our obligation to it. To willfully reject the simplicity of this claim is to dislodge the mind from reason and thus invert your power to comprehend.

@Nomadic,

Nomadic, could you kindly space the paragraphs in this so it's not a run-on sentence. It's very difficult to read like it is.

@Nomadic,

I made the proper adjustments. Thanks.

@Nomadic,

I must say that this is one fantastic post. Your thinking is quite clear. I almost dare not question it but I am a brave sort, so here goes.

Nomadic wrote:

[CENTER][CENTER]COHESIVE REALITY[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

[CENTER][CENTER]"The Truth is the Truth"[/CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Whatsoever exist remains fixed in the concrete substance of its designated existence. The vital essence of life and the experiential awareness thereof is the product of that which does not depend on those who experience it. Therefore whosoever exist exists solely on the basis of that which does not rely on him. For who among men has chosen to exist? The will of man is therefore disqualified in the establishment of meaning and purpose. One cannot see beyond the limitation of the experience of seeing. One cannot hear beyond the limitations of the experience of hearing. All these things were predefined for us. Should we now attempt to take what was predefined for us to redefine existence?

[/COLOR]

This is saying that sensory stimulation, of witch we have no control, are the predicate essense of our existance and nothing but our direct observation is reality. Sensory input = substance of reality.

[quote]Nonetheless, in an attempt to configure meaning and purpose man sought to subject the substance of reality to the finite limitations of their inadequate minds. [/quote]

What sense does not require configuration of the data it experiences? What use is it to hear but cannot judge between a thunderclap and a singing bird? Our minds must configure meaning for the input to be of any use, and now we are subjecting reality to our finite limitations. Subjective judgments of meaning are inescapable.

[quote]Seeking to lay hold of that which exceeds their grasps, man devised to conceptualize life; identifying the essential meaning of it through the inconsistency of generic ideas, abstracted from the deep sense of uncertainty which proceeds from the fear of the unknown.[/quote]

What is conceptualization if not abstractons of reality? Can you use words without conceptualizing? Where would our species be if we only relied on what we had direct observation of? Seeing animal tracks go over a ridge would never lead us to think what made them nor could we make any inference. so now with our great apptitude for abstract conceptions we naturally attempt to conceptualize everything; life, emotions, and reality.

[quote] As a result, the opinions of man assumed the position of that which defines him. Man chose not, yet he is, and in being what he is, his opinions are therefore deprived of the power, right, and privilege of defining him. [/quote]

Again, it is not IMO the sensory data nor the limits of our senses that define man but the value judgments that he willfully chooses to ascribe to the experience.[quote]

Truth is therefore not relative nor is it a concept. On the contrary it is the source which conceptualized all things. The Truth is involuntary, contrary to and without choice and not subjected to control of the will. It strips man of his assumed power and renders him utterly dependant. Therefore man cannot define the Truth the Truth defines him. Existence is experienced exclusively on the premise of Life. This essence of tangible awareness substantiates the direct realization of existence to those who experience it. Existence communicates the Truth, for it is immune to dissimulation. The concrete actuality of a thing is contingent upon the Truth, for that's what the Truth is, reality. The cohesive reality of the Truth is inseparable from those who experience it. A thing can only exist in reality and sustained through it being actual. The very essence of the Truth demands that we acknowledge it. We cannot believe something and it becomes True, it must be True first then we believe. The Truth defines all things. Everything dwells within boundaries of the It and is restrained to Its authority and rule.[/quote]

Is love real? Is pain real? I suppose we could define the physiological conditions of the emotions and label them tangible, but that would be rather clinical. what about the mind, is it real?

[quote] Before cognitive man every experience existence it was fixed and firmly established. It is the platform by which all things are conveyed. But error is summoned when we try to define our existence through philosophical means rather than allowing existence to speak to us, granting us the gift to grasp its firm and profound meaning.[/quote]

Existance of the universe preceded mankind and mankind is now here then why not ask why? Are you saying I am because I am is the firm and profound meaning? Are you not defining mans existance through phylisophical means yourself?

[quote] To discard all preconceived notions and recognized that we are all in the fetal state of understanding, without true knowledge and that every man is a liar, by default, because he has not the means to define himself.[/quote]

Self defeating

[quote] The Truth is free from imperfection and the contamination of relative ideas and notions, because it embodies existence and personifies it. The verity of our incapability of defining the Truth does not make the Truth meaningless. The Truth cannot be defined by us it can only be Acknowledged. We must recognize the right, authority, and status of the Truth, by expressing the gratitude of our obligation to it. To willfully reject the simplicity of this claim is to dislodge the mind from reason and thus invert your power to comprehend.[/quote]

what do you mean by gratitude of obligation? Yes, the claim is simple, or did you mean to willfully reject this claim?

[quote]Everything that exists requires an intermediate to bring it about. [/quote]
Speculation. You have created a reality that is not based on observation i.e. intermediate. Is not the need for an intermediate just the kind of imaginative abstract concept you warned about earlier? Have you seen the intermediate of the universe? You allready said mans finite mind is incapable of transcending his senses to conceptualize the unknown so how can you deduce an intermediate. There could be causes for the universe beyond your finite minds ability to comprehend.

[/quote]

I do not mean to be to critical, I'm just practicing critical thinking. I can dish it out but I can take it too so I look forward to your response and any other posts.

PEACE:)

@Nomadic,

How are we so sure there is a truth?

I don't deny it; but at the same time I understand that our knowledge is finite, and I appreciate that it's cognitively and pragmatically convenient for truth to be assumed. But quite simply we can't speak of truth so confidently to write essays built upon its assumption.

@ogden,

WORDS IN BLUE ARE STATEMENTS MADE BY OGDEN

This is saying that sensory stimulation, of witch we have no control, are the predicate essense of our existance and nothing but our direct observation is reality. Sensory input = substance of reality.

Sensory stimulation is an accessory and is not the premise upon which reality is substantiated. On the contrary reality is the premise upon which sensory stimulation is conveyed. You are correct when you say we have no control over this unique characteristic; yet you fail to consider that our inability to control such characteristics render us subject to these characteristics whereby these characteristics act as the governing mechanism for which we convey observation. These abilities are thus exclusively contingent, but not upon us, that these characteristics should rely upon us for affirmation. But rather, we rely upon these characteristics as an affirming instrument for our observation. Thus these characteristic are pre-determined essential qualities by which we have become the recipients of such characteristics. These characteristics also require a premise upon which they become inherently incorporated, thus they too are contingent. Every contingent thing requires a premise upon which such contingencies are expressed. For this reason sensory input cannot equal the substance of reality but must be a product of that substance. And being the product of such substance they cannot define the substance but can only be essential in recognizing as genuine the substance from which they were brought forth.

What sense does not require configuration of the data it experiences? What use is it to hear but cannot judge between a thunderclap and a singing bird? Our minds must configure meaning for the input to be of any use, and now we are subjecting reality to our finite limitations. Subjective judgments of meaning are inescapable.

What is conceptualization if not abstractons of reality? Can you use words without conceptualizing? Where would our species be if we only relied on what we had direct observation of? Seeing animal tracks go over a ridge would never lead us to think what made them nor could we make any inference. so now with our great apptitude for abstract conceptions we naturally attempt to conceptualize everything; life, emotions, and reality.

A concept is a generic idea that "originates" in the mind. The tracks that an animal leaves did not originate in the mind, it happens as an independent consequence of the feet upon the sand. Thus observing such remnants is not a concept. The tracks in and of itself is the objective data of which our senses have become the recipient of. In others words the tracks speaks to our senses the meaning of the tracks' presence. Words are an observational reference instrument whereby the mind responds to the thing of which it observes. Thus that which is observed transmits the data of which the mind in turn responds to what is transmitted. For instance if one should see two trees planted upon on one hill; the word used to reference the quantity of trees would be the number two. The word "two" thus derives it meaning from the data transmitted by the trees which are received into our senses. Reality cannot be a concept because it does not originate in the mind but is only observe by it. Reality is involuntarily exclusive and hinges upon no thing yet all things hinges upon it. Therefore any attempt to conceptualize reality is flawed in its conception. Simply because reality is not an issue of conceptualization but of acknowledgment.

Is love real? Is pain real? I suppose we could define the physiological conditions of the emotions and label them tangible, but that would be rather clinical. what about the mind, is it real?

The immaterial aspects of our senses must be clearly understood. To ask whether love is real refers to a three reference point observation. The first reference is the mind (which is the platform upon which such observational questions are conveyed); the second is the objective reference to our immaterial senses and whether or not it is conveyed upon the premise of the third reference point which is reality. The question defeats itself because it demands the actuality of reality as a premise to validate the immaterial senses. Is the mind real? Yes; simply because such a question demands an observational mechanism to conclude the answer. If this were not so, than the question would have never been asked. Is love real? Most certainly; simply because it can only be objectively referred to as something that demands an independent observation on the basis of reality. The question, "is anything real", concludes that absolute reality is the only reference by which such questions can be measured and validated.

Existance of the universe preceded mankind and mankind is now here then why not ask why? Are you saying I am because I am is the firm and profound meaning? Are you not defining mans existance through phylisophical means yourself?

To ask the question why shows clearly what we are. Contingent beings dependant upon that which does not depends on us. The profound meaning of existence is not that we are what we are but that being what we are reveals what we are not. That is, we are not the source of reality or knowledge, but products and recipients of them. Therefore the profound meaning can only be the source of reality, not us. I did not attempt to define mans existence but simply to acknowledge what our existence objectively conveys.

Speculation. You have created a reality that is not based on observation i.e. intermediate. Is not the need for an intermediate just the kind of imaginative abstract concept you warned about earlier? Have you seen the intermediate of the universe? You allready said mans finite mind is incapable of transcending his senses to conceptualize the unknown so how can you deduce an intermediate. There could be causes for the universe beyond your finite minds ability to comprehend

The inescapable necessity of an intermediate is not a concept neither does it originate in the mind. It is the necessary component by which all created things are brought about. Can you name one created thing that has no intermediate? ...Have you thought of one yet? ...Probably not, simply because the intermediate always precedes that which it brings about. I did not attempt to define the intermediate but simply acknowledge that it must certainly be.

I appreciate your response to my post and look forward to hearing your ideas. Thanks.

@Nomadic,

Nomadic wrote:

The inescapable necessity of an intermediate is not a concept neither does it originate in the mind. It is the necessary component by which all created things are brought about. Can you name one created thing that has no intermediate? ...Have you thought of one yet? ...Probably not, simply because the intermediate always precedes that which it brings about. I did not attempt to define the intermediate but simply acknowledge that it must certainly be.

Are you using the word "created" colloquially? Because it certainly isn't an appropriate word to describe physical processes. I don't think "intermediate" is an appropriate way of looking at continuous processes either except in the sense of a derivative of a curve. In other words, at this moment in time I am an intermediate between myself in the past and myself in the future. But that's a momentary state of being -- but the physical processes (including those orchestrated by biologic and biochemical mechanisms) are NOT intermediates -- they're just physical currencies. All processes happen by transfer of energy over time and space.[/COLOR]

Furthermore, unless we're going to engage in deification of Aristotle, which has been done enough times in past history that we can probably move on, do we really have to go down chains of secondary causes/effects that originate with a primary cause? All our physical time in this current epoch may stem from a singularity of all things at the instant before the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a before. Maybe there really is no cause -- and everything is a bunch of incidentals and particulars. Maybe time and causality are the seeds of human reason but NOT the seeds of existence.

@Aedes,

Thank you Nomadic. I can see that my first imprssion of your post was correct in that your thinking is clear. I think alot of that post went over my head. Now that youv'e explained it I am closer to the truth:D. Your efforts to explanain are very much appreciated.

I see that creation is the objective data (tracks) that indicate the intermediate. Yea, I think iv'e got it now.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

How are we so sure there is a truth?

I don't deny it; but at the same time I understand that our knowledge is finite, and I appreciate that it's cognitively and pragmatically convenient for truth to be assumed. But quite simply we can't speak of truth so confidently to write essays built upon its assumption.

The truth is ineffable.

Language deviates from the existential reality it presumes. If 'tree' (word) means a tree* (* reality), then I suppose that it is safe to assume that 'tree'=tree*, for 'one'=1*. It is easy to refute this saying 'tree' signifies tree*, however if we take mathematics, it presumes that one thing is equal to 1, for example an abacus is used on the basis that each bead is equivalent to 1, or 10, or 100.

If we can say that a single philosophical truth is that existence exists, we can also say that language deviates from this truth*; a 'tree' is not a tree*, 'tree' is a word, which deviates from the reality it attempts to describe by being unequal to said reality. Another way of putting it is via pun; 'language' represents "any set or system of such symbols as used in a more or less uniform fashion by a number of people, who are thus enabled to communicate intelligibly with one another", seeing as we can assume that a symbol is intended to be equivalent to reality, we can rephrase this like so: "a system of symbols equivalent to reality that are used in order to communicate facts". However it is simple to say that '1' is not one*, for the one* is a different thing; so we can say that '1'=one* is false, or in other words, a lie - a simple refutation of the 'truth' is that something which is 'true' cannot be a lie, therefore the 'truth' is ineffable.

The crux of this argument is this: existence exists, language is equivalent to existence, one can assume that 'language'=existence* (this is the assumption upon which the 'truth' is founded), however a 'word' is absolutely NOT equal to existence, for 'language' is a linear construct designed to represent existence. So the absolute 'truth', the truly true 'truth' is not true to existence. Therefore the truth* (reality/existence) is truly ineffable.

This theory has implications for morality, law, and philosophy in general. An example of one of the implications is that morality will never reach a finite 'truth' (that something is definitely 'good' or 'bad'), so morality can be considered an assumption. It is typical - due to religion - that one assumes that 'sloth', or wasting time, is immoral; so because morality will never succeed in achieving a true/correct/absolute answer, it can be considered a waste of time (which is immoral). An example follows: if one is stranded upon a mountain with an unconscious, injured friend, one is forced to consider three options - 1) to run for aid, 2) to give first aid, and 3) to use a moral approach in deciding which of the two to choose. The moral approach is a waste of time, because it will never achieve a correct answer; therefore choosing morality in this instance is immoral, in that it is not 'good' to waste time in such a situation. Of course this example is paradoxical because it refutes morality whilst using morality.

Anyway, back to the topic:

Quote:

Sensory input = substance of reality.

One can say that this theorem is false, via analogy with the aforementioned argument - if 'language' deviates from the reality* it attempts to describe, then one can also say that so too does sensory perception: a simple example would be the eye, which transforms a reflection of light upside down, into electrical impulses and into a final delusion, one's imagination (imagination is a fairly approximate term, in that we create an image using sensory perception); all of these transformations are deviant from the existence they theoretically originate in. This a formative basis of meta-physics, ie the reason for the 'meta' - "Beyond; transcending; more comprehensive: metapsychology."

@Nomadic,

Mathematics is irrelevant, because at best it's a tautology and at worst it thinks it's a tautology that has some leaks and exceptions. And language is so filled with vagaries that it also draws less from any actual truth than we think it does. Experimental philosophy, such as that by Joshua Knobe, has shown that language is used inconsistently depending on people's reactionary moral judgements.

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Mathematics is irrelevant, because at best it's a tautology and at worst it thinks it's a tautology that has some leaks and exceptions. And language is so filled with vagaries that it also draws less from any actual truth than we think it does. Experimental philosophy, such as that by Joshua Knobe, has shown that language is used inconsistently depending on people's reactionary moral judgements.

THE WORDS OF AEDES ARE IN RED

The school of thought that trains the mind to disregard all objective references, yet attempts to do so by the use of objective references, is at best inverted logic (or circular reasoning) and at worst fatal ignorance. Lets put the fragile logical structure of the above statement to the test and see if it can stand. Shall we?

"Mathematics is irrelevant because at best it's a tautology and at worst it thinks it's a tautology that has some leaks and exceptions"

The statement above uses the objective reference of Mathematics as the premise upon which to objectively dismiss its relevance. To say "Mathematics" is to refer to the observable science of numbers and their operational interrelations. To say it is "irrelevant" to refer to the same observable science of numbers and their operational interrelations, but to dismiss its objective (observable) evidence and replace it with an alleged objective statement that it unobservable. One cannot observe the irrelevance of Mathematics they can only presume it on the basis of a subjective claim that masquerades as an objective argument. The moon is objective and being objective it can only be objectively referred to. So in order to replace the objectivity of the moon one must first objectively refer to it, then dismiss it subjectively, with a "presumed" objective statement. The rest the sentence affirms my point precisely in that it refers to Mathematics as "it" (it being the direct object) then proceeds to objectively assume what Mathematics "think".

"And language is so filled with vagaries that it also draws less from any actual truth than we think it does."

The same method of inverted reasoning is applied to the statement above. The writer uses language to disprove the relevance of language. If language was so "vague" to the point where it draws less from the truth, why then is language used to dismiss language? Since language is the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them to be used and understood, how can a person use a combination of words to dismiss the very system of combination from which they are derived? In an attempt to dismiss language one cannot ignore the objective use of language. And that school of thought that disciplines the mind in the doctrine of circular reasoning also teaches that truth is assumed, yet uses the truth as the absolute reference to affirm their argument. The statement "draws less from any actual truth"

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Are you using the word "created" colloquially? Because it certainly isn't an appropriate word to describe physical processes. I don't think "intermediate" is an appropriate way of looking at continuous processes either except in the sense of a derivative of a curve. In other words, at this moment in time I am an intermediate between myself in the past and myself in the future. But that's a momentary state of being -- but the physical processes (including those orchestrated by biologic and biochemical mechanisms) are NOT intermediates -- they're just physical currencies. All processes happen by transfer of energy over time and space.[/color]

Furthermore, unless we're going to engage in deification of Aristotle, which has been done enough times in past history that we can probably move on, do we really have to go down chains of secondary causes/effects that originate with a primary cause? All our physical time in this current epoch may stem from a singularity of all things at the instant before the Big Bang, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a before. Maybe there really is no cause -- and everything is a bunch of incidentals and particulars. Maybe time and causality are the seeds of human reason but NOT the seeds of existence.

THE WORDS OF AEDES ARE IN RED

"Are you using the word "created" colloquially? Because it certainly isn't an appropriate word to describe physical processes. I don't think "intermediate" is an appropriate way of looking at continuous processes either except in the sense of a derivative of a curve."

The intermediate is not the physical process but rather the establisher of such processes. Example: Apple computer create a lap top notebook which harnesses 3.0 GHz dual processors. The format which constitutes the function of such processes is exclusively established by the Intermediate, Apple Inc. Apple Inc is not the processors but is the intermediate that brought such processors about. The very existence of physical processes demands all the more the necessity of an intermediate. Furthermore all processes possess secession occurrences which are manifested by gradual changes that direct toward a particular result. In other words, there is a pre determined format for which the functions of such processes are directed by the successions that occur. All such processes, defined by their successive function, by default, must be created; since the initial conception of such processes is determined by the result (or destination goal) that they produce. So yes "Created" is the appropriate word to use in describing the universe and all that inhabit it.

"In other words, at this moment in time I am an intermediate between myself in the past and myself in the future. But that's a momentary state of being"

@Nomadic,

Nomadic, hello...

I was thinking about this succession as a process that is required for all that exists. It stands to reason that the river looks the same in each moment and is precieved to be the same rever, but the water is moving so it is in process. If I considered a stone, I could say that it's atomic particles are in mottion so it is in process. What then happens if the rock is frosen to absolute zero and the atomic particles stoped, would it sease to exist? Process/sucsesson=existance?

@ogden,

Hello Ogden,

First I would like to say that I appreciate your response to my post and welcome your post and any question you may have for me.

If the succession of a process should sequence to absolute zero, the process it self would not cease. This is because the sequence of absolute zero still requires a format at which it should be sustained at absolute zero. In other words, absolute zero still requires some working mechanism to sustain its sequence, thus the object which is in absolute zero would not cease to exist, but cease to effect in motion by the functional process which sequenced it. Time itself is sequenced by a succession of momentary occurrences. If at the moment a thing ceases in motion, then the span of the absolute zero would still be represented by the successive momentary occurrence of which such immobility is conveyed. So no, it would not cease to exist but only exist in ceased motion.

@Nomadic,

Herein sums up how I feel about truth:

Deflationary theory of truth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do, from a functional point of view, have some sympathy for the pragmatic theory, but that's because to live requires somewhat of an assumption of certain truths, even if they fall apart philosophically.

Nomadic wrote:

The school of thought that trains the mind to disregard all objective references, yet attempts to do so by the use of objective references, is at best inverted logic (or circular reasoning) and at worst fatal ignorance.

Which is EXACTLY why I find it ludicrous to refer to math as any source of logical, let alone objective truth. Mathematics, as I said, is a tautology. It's entirely circular. 1+1=2 simply because those terms are defined as such with reference to each other. So it's got internal coherence, but no reference to anything outside its system. In other words, there is no objective reference that validates mathematics. Now, Godel demonstrated logical inconsistencies in mathematics that might make it fall apart even as a tautology (which is why Bertrand Russell gave up on trying to demonstrate all of math using symbolic logic), but that doesn't mean it has any objective reference -- it just makes it an imperfect closed system.

Quote:

Lets put the fragile logical structure of the above statement to the test and see if it can stand. Shall we?

Go for it.

Quote:

The statement above uses the objective reference of Mathematics as the premise upon which to objectively dismiss its relevance.

No, it uses the irrelevance of mathematics to truth as its own premise. Math is a lexical system built on a human cognitive process of enumeration. That doesn't give it access to truth, though. When you find here on planet earth the PERFECT triangle that demonstrates the Pythagorean theorem, please let us know.

Quote:

To say "Mathematics" is to refer to the observable science of numbers and their operational interrelations.

Numbers are an observable science?? Mathematics stems from a lexicon that is internally and tautologically defined, and it's observible ONLY when it is applied to external systems that are already observible. The math itself is never observible.

Quote:

To say it is "irrelevant" to refer to the same observable science of numbers and their operational interrelations, but to dismiss its objective (observable) evidence and replace it with an alleged objective statement that it unobservable.

It's no "allegation". Please demonstrate ONE for me. Not one banana, or one marble, but ONE.

Quote:

The writer uses language to disprove the relevance of language.

Well, I need to use SOME tool to get my point across, but that pragmatic decision doesn't argue for or against any objective truth in language. Symbolic logic is so central to modern logical philosophy simply because language is too vague. Even the verb TO BE is vague enough to have at least three completely separate definitions within symbolic logic. So when you say "x IS ...", there are several ways that statement can be interpreted (predication, existence, identity).

Furthermore, take a look at some modern experimental philosophy to get a sense of how little basic language draws from TRUTH (which is something that is wholly speculative). Basic concepts like "INTENTIONALITY" and "CAUSE" change in the minds of humans depending on MORAL factors, not FACTUAL ideas. This work has been done by Prof. Josh Knobe. The first link shows how shaky INTENT is. The second is his work on CAUSE. The third is his home page.

Intentional Action and Side-Effects in Ordinary Language

http://www.unc.edu/~knobe/Knobe-Fraser.pdf

Joshua Knobe

@Aedes,

Hello, Aedes

One professor said this concerning math: "Can you see the number one? Show me the number 1, and then we will know that it is real". This professor's statement is the inconsistent foundation upon which such arguments are conveyed. My question to such speculation would be: Show me any word that is spoken? The very words used to combine his sentences are all unobservable yet he uses them as the premise upon which to observe and confirm the reality of a word (number 1). Spoken words are not observable objects but are objective statements referring to observable objects. Math refers to the functional correlation of quantity systems and its observable data. Word numbers are simply observational reference instruments, used as a response to the functional correlation of such quantities. 2+2=4 is not circular reasoning as it is an observational reference formula which refers to the dual quantity of an object as it corresponds to the dual measures of such quantities. The word numbers itself derives its value and meaning from the observable data transmitted by these functional quantities; thus math is observable by the properties inherited in the functional quantity of a specific object, and not simply in the number words use to describe such quantities. Math is an internal response to an external quantity system. The Science of math (or the knowledge derived from quantity systems) is the acquired data transmitted from such quantity systems which dictates the internal response. So to say Math is illogical is to objectively refer to such systems, and override the data transmitted by such systems, with the inconsistency of a flawed internal response that refuses to acknowledge what the system dictates. Therefore the only thing that is illogical concerning Math is a willful dismissal response to it.

As far as your position on language the same type of reasoning is applied. You use the "Truth" as a mechanism to dismiss language, and then use the same language to dismiss the verity of the "Truth". In order to confirm your statement concerning language one must have an objective observational reference to the truth as the measure of confirmation or dismissal. And since the very combination words you are speaking renders language as an objective instrument, you cannot through such instruments, objectively dismantle language.

It was once said "One cannot cut the sword with the same sword. One cannot throw the stone at the same stone."

@Nomadic,

Well, if your best counter to me is that I'm using language to argue against transcendent truth within language, then that is an argument replete with fallacy, not the least of which is clean circularity. The argument is identical to you saying that language contains truth because we use language, and numbers contain truth because we use numbers. We require language to have a conversation at all. And dammit, language is good enough for me to argue that your ideas of universal truths, including those you claim to nest within language, are just nonsense. And if it takes an imperfect form of communication to get the message across, then so be it. Until you can read my mind, it's the best I can do.

Incidentally 2+2=4 is NOT derived from observation. It's a linguistic expression of synonymity that is dependent solely on the concepts represented by the symbols -- and concepts are not observable.

Furthermore, it's convenient for you to point to easy equations like 2+2=4 to demonstrate truth. But tell me about the square root of 3. What does it equal? It's an irrational number -- so can you create an equation from the square root of three that is TRUE? Or how about something simpler. What about 2/3? Is it 0.7? Is it 0.666667? Is it 0.666666666666666667? What happens to the concept when we run out of symbols to illustrate it? Is something not true just because we lack a symbol? Or are things that have symbols simply that -- things that have symbols that may or may not have truth? The word unicorn doesn't refer to something real, after all.

@Nomadic,

Hello, nomadic.

Thanks for that answer about continued process of idleness. The succession is sustained by the structure of process around it; if I were observing it I would still precieve the passage of time.

My next question is about the intermediate. In your example of the computer and the computer maker, the computer does not define it's own purpose.

1. What if the computer was set up with the ability to evolve by way of random mutation into something that it was not at its origin? How would the unknown result be then predetermined by the maker?

2. What if the computer maker did make the computer but has subsaquently gone out of buisiness? Does the intermediate still need to exist in order for the computer to exist? Could the intermediate be absent?

3. Assumeing the above questions are possible could the computer ever reach a pount that it could deduce it's purpose for itself?

@Nomadic,

Quote:

Incidentally 2+2=4 is NOT derived from observation. It's a linguistic expression of synonymity that is dependent solely on the concepts represented by the symbols -- and concepts are not observable

It seems you have entirely ignored my example of an abacus. Yes an abacus is a symbolic representation of 1, but then so too is the word 'tree' a symbolic representation of existence - this is just an inverse logic. Neither is true, so the truth is ineffable, because the truth is assumed based on the proposition that language can or is supposed to be equal/equivalent/exactly relevant to reality, which it is absolutely not.

So 1+1=2 when used in conjunction with an abacus is false.
Or in other words language used in conjunction with reality is false.
Language is only ever used in conjunction with reality or surreality, so language is entirely false in all contexts; maths however is rarely used in conjunction with reality, it is applied via mechanics or logistics to reality, so maths can be true within it's abstracted reality.

Quote:

"One cannot cut the sword with the same sword. One cannot throw the stone at the same stone."

When maths meets language we have logic, so one can cut the truth out of language with logic. And anyway, that's just a polemic.

Is x=y language, maths or logic? It could be all three.
I could use it and say that x means 'tree' and y means reality*, or I could say that x='tree' and y=reality*, or I could say that x entails one tree and y entails 1. All three are false when used in conjunction with reality, which they all are.

@Nomadic,

I CAN assail language using language, reason using reason, and math using math. Language isn't a sword and reason isn't a stone. Philosophers have spent eternity using reason to attack one anothers' rational proofs. Geometers have spent an eternity using geometry to assail one anothers' mathematical proofs. As you point out at the bottom of your post, there isn't so clean a distinction between math, logic, and language. Each employs the other. So where is truth amidst all these interlocking cognitive systems? Truth may be what we think or what we mean, but it's not what we have.

Philosophy Forum
» Epistemology
» The Cohesive Reality

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

The Cohesive Reality

Quick Links

My Account

able2know