Hi all,

[SIZE="3"]As a life strategy I don't seek or hold Truths . . . I always question what I believe, and am never satisfied that what I believe is True. Call it Life Learned Humility.

Why is the only way of knowing to take a poll? It isn't even any way of knowing. I know that Quito is the capital because I have looked it up in reliable sources like the Atlas, or the World Book of Facts.

That a lot of people believe that Quito is the capital doesn't matter. It would still be the capital even if they did not believe it. I would suppose that, in fact, the great majority of people in the world do not believe that Quito is the capital. So what?

Of course I am sure that if someone knows that p is true, then he is not mistaken? How can he know that p is true, and p not be true? That would be a contradiction. (Of course, a person can believe he knows that p is true, and be mistaken. But I have pointed this out a number of times).

Was the captain wrong about what? What belief did he have that he could have been right or wrong about it?

Where did the ship's captain come from, anyway?

I really like your approach, I follow it myself and may take it even further. I don't believe it is possible to mentally possess the truth. I therefore disagree with most of the posters here who seem to believe the "truth" is something we can mentally have or hold. As is often the case, discussions of truth are more complicated if participants haven't agreed on the definition of truth. Here's how I break it down.

Our overall approaches are very similar. Where we may differ are on two points:

1) I think knowledge of the physical world is limited by the constraints of space and time. My Mind can only view things from a given place in space and time. Some other Mind sees everything from a different angle (perspective). So I can only imagine what the other side looks like - I cannot perceive it. However, all bets are off when the Mind is in a non-physical world such as sleep. Who the heck knows what is going on there. Heraclitus says "The souls are hard at work". I bet they are!

2) I do not believe there is an external reality independent of myself. I am involved in some fashion with everything that I perceive by the essential act of perceiving it (sort of a play on the Heisenberg Principle). To the extent that others are involved, what we perceive is an agreement between consensual Minds. In areas that we don't agree (as this thread is an example), there is conflict and growth. In some cases, such as when I feel I didn't go through a red light and the judge disagrees, I also have to pay a fine. I guess that is growth in a way.

Would appreciate any comments.

Rich

He may feel he is not mistaken. Which is fine. He can lead any kind of life he chooses. The problem is when he tries to impose his truth on someone else who disagrees. Then you have conflict - which is what Heraclitus proposes is the dynamics that creates new knowledge and understanding. So, in a way, having people who believe that things are true is as inherent in the universe as those who believe the opposite. Combined, it creates new knowledge. So, welcome aboard the knowledge cycle!



He felt that it was true that if he steered the boat in this direction that the crew would get home safely. However, feeling something is true does not create outcomes. It is just a personal feeling.



As a thought experiment, we can, if we wish, envision ourselves as captains navigating through life. The Mind (and its various compositions) is making the choice of direction, as it did in the case of the captain and his ship.

Rich

---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 AM ----------

If he believed it was true that he could save the crew, and if he didn't, then obviously, he was wrong. That's what the word, "believe" means. How is there any question about it?

I really don't know what you mean by "imposing" truth on others. I asked this before, but do you think that if a teacher gives a quiz, and he fails someone for getting the answers wrong, the teacher is "imposing his truth" on the student who failed? Or if someone asks for the time, and you tell him the time, you are imposing your truth on the person.

Yes, he believed what he was doing was OK. As it turned out, it was not. C'est la vie. I hope he wasn't stubborn about it. Some captains can be quite stubborn and not listen to opposing view because they feel what they are doing it true. Actually, he might have done the best job possible, but despite it all, he still capsizes. And that is life. Strong tidal waves can overturn even the best ideas.



Depends upon your point of view. You may feel that schooling is about learning what is true. I think practically everything I learned in school turned out to be otherwise or has changed since. Geography, words, history (interpretations thereof), penmanship, a lot of the math, etc. From my point of view, school is about teaching people how to form a consensus. One way is to mimic back what your leader (teacher) is telling you. From this perspective, the teacher is doing exactly what the teacher is suppose to do. Penalizing anyone who doesn't mimic well. You may believe a statement is true. Why? Because you mimicked perfectly. But to prove it ... alas there is a problem because information of the outside world is old the moment you perceive/conceive it.

Rich

Do you think the student should have been marked wrong on his answer that the capital of Ecuador is La Paz or not. You seem to be dodging the question. Are you? That's, of course, a yes, or a no.

Hi,

Depends. If the teacher is trying to teach independent, creative thought, he might give the student an A. If he is trying to teach the student how to get along with the world and reach consensus quickly by believing what is told to him, then the teacher does what needs to be done - i.e. deduct.

It all depends upon what is attempting to be achieved. By the time people leave college, they know full well what they need to do to get along in life. The best students (those who get straight A's) know for sure that they need to listen very attentively to their boss and do exactly what the boss tells them to do. Success is assured! Rebels - well they can go out and be creative in the art field if they like.

Rich

Why would the teacher give an A if the student got the wrong answer? How is getting the wrong answer a manifestation of independent thought. It is, so far as I can see, an indication that the student has not studied, or is stupid. You think that student who get the answer right should be marked wrong, and those who get the answer wrong, rewarded with an A. Any particular reason for such a bizarre view of things?

When a medical student takes an anatomy exam, and gets where the aorta artery is located wrong, how would you feel about his operating on you?

Some things are consistently true: Granite is hard. Some truth can be variable through time: The capitol of X might be Y one year, and then Z the next. So if I speak about a truth that is defined by man, such as a political map, I say that the present capitol of Ecuador is Quito, but I never assert that it shall always be so.

Some truths may be strongly likely but unproven:A rock will always(key word here) fall to the Earth if it is in sufficiently close proximity to its the surface. It is correlationaly true, but it is not true in the same sense that "You are presently reading this sentence" is, or in the same sense that 'There are presently rocks on Earth'(assuming you are reading this while rocks are still here:)) is, which are both strongly empirically verifiable.

Some things are consistently true: Granite is hard. Some truth can be variable through time: The capitol of X might be Y one year, and then Z the next. So if I speak about a truth that is defined by man, such as a political map, I say that the present capitol of Ecuador is Quito, but I never assert that it shall always be so.

Some truths may be strongly likely but unproven:A rock will always(key word here) fall to the Earth if it is in sufficiently close proximity to its the surface. It is correlationaly true, but it is not true in the same sense that "You are presently reading this sentence" is, or in the same sense that 'There are presently rocks on Earth'(assuming you are reading this while rocks are still here:)) is, which are both strongly empirically verifiable.

Hi,

I would put it a bit differently, so that I can use the same point of view across all spectrum of probabilities.

I would say:

"There are some declarations for which a greater consensus has been reached among a certain population than others, and therefore when you make that declaration there is a greater likelihood that you will get agreement."

So we have a spectrum of declarations, ranging from very likely that you will get agreement to very unlikely. This may or may no correlate to your own personal beliefs of true and not true. So you have an interesting dialog going on between people.

Now I may believe very strongly that vaccinations are harmful to me personally. Most of the population may disagree. Indeed, a vaccination may kill me. So which is true?

A less contentious example, would be rocks. I might get quick agreement from people that there rocks in the world. Great! I am now in the majority and I feel sane again. But I run into a person (or maybe more) that insist that there are no rocks in the world. In fact the world doesn't even exist. It is an illusion. Darn! I thought I finally found a truth that everyone could agree on, and these guys mess it up for me. I am unable to reach a consensus with them. But 99% consensus is still pretty good. I am satisfied, I know something is true ... kind of.

Rich

But who would think that because it is not possible without enough information, it is not possible at all even if there is enough information?

Hi,

Yes. We both agree on this point. Information is the key. Who is gathering it and how they are perceiving and processing it. Eventually the individual mind will make a decision. The decision may or may not be in agreement with the person that the person is relating to.

To you have two perceptions. One in my mind, which was determined via information gathering, and one in your mind, which was determined via information gathering. Then we try to create a relationship between us that we can agree on. If we cannot we end up discussing or fighting about it. Even very simple, obvious things can end up in huge discussions - e.g., whether a hat is pretty.

If you try to create a consensus with someone whose mind is in a completely different place and seeing completely different things (sometimes it is said that the person has a disorder, but I don't think that is the case), then you can talk your face blue and consensus will not happen. The two people cannot create a relationship between them (an intersection of information) that they can agree on.

Many times people agree when there isn't a consensus, just to move on. You might say that people stop when they see I red light. I might agree. But if you ever observe people at the corner watching a red light, they have not stopped at all. They are doing all kinds of different things, but we agree via consensus to describe it as such.

Information is gathered (senses) and interpreted (mind) as an antenna might, and then transmitted (spoken) as a radio might. And when the transmissions intersection other transmissions a new relationship is formed, and it will be different for each relationship. Sometimes there is consensus but most often not. Disagreements abound. Just observe this forum and see how many times people agree and how many times they disagree.

Rich

But, of course, what the facts themselves are, is independent of agreement, and so, independent of how they happen to be described.

This is your assumption. What you believe is true. Convince me. :detective:

If you can, then we have arrived at a consensus. We can both shake hands and declare that what we say is true. Well, I might be a little hesitant, because so often I have been wrong, even when someone agrees with me.

If you can't, then we argue (Heraclitus). Not unusual at all.

Or, we can just say nothing to each other, and be comfortable that whatever we think is true is true, or maybe true, or possibly true, or probably true, or whatever.

It all works for me.

The only thing that bothers me is some knows something is true and then tries to impose it upon me.

Rich

Whether I can persuade you that what I believe is true is irrelevant to whether what I believe is true.

I agree. We have achieved consensus.

Rich

I don't see how you can agree after what you have been arguing. But I suppose I should be thankful even for inconsistencies.