Why I don't seek the Truth

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

LWSleeth
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:18 am
@richrf,
richrf;68124 wrote:
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.


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.

There are three issues involved in truth: reality, human perception, and the attempts of the human mind to accurately represent reality for thinking about it. So reality is all that exists, perception is how we detect the presence of reality, and thinking is how we represent perceived reality in the mind.

The simplest definition of "truth" then is: truth is when correctly perceived reality is accurately represented in the mind. This is usually called the correspondence in epistemology (as you can see, there is no truth external to the mind, truth is a principle of consciousness, not external reality). For a statement like "the man walked into the woods and chopped down a fir tree" to be true (or the "truth"), each element must be accurately represented with the mental concepts and words used; so the chopper has to be a man, in the woods, the tree a fir, etc. We misrepresent reality mentally (state or think non-truths) for three main reasons: we misperceive, we prevaricate (purposely alter statements to reflect other than what we've perceived), and we fallaciously reason (i.e., not purposely, but just from poor thinking skills).

Okay, with all those definitions and conditions laid down, here's why I don't think it is possible to ever mentally hold the truth. Reality is always changing, so what we knew to be true in this moment may not be true in the next. At best we can hold the truth of how reality has been in the past, but there is always the possibility that it won't be the same in the future. Further, as developing human beings, we are subject to misperception and misunderstanding, so even the past may be represented falsely in mentality due to honest mistakes.

Therefore, the wise person never assumes he knows anything forever or for certain, but instead maintains a constant openness to reality altering his views. Those view are maintained only tentatively, with a readiness to abandon them if perception feeds us new information. That's quite unlike the way most people I know maintain views where beliefs about reality are clung to like a drowning person clings to a life preserver. In my opinion, that's why there are so few true philosophers in this world . . . because people are more committed to their beliefs, and the defense of them, than they are to truth.

I'm not suggesting we can't know the truth, only that we can't know that we know the truth, and that since reality is always changing, we can't treat "truths" as though they are forever permanent.

Finally, there is one more interesting element to all this, which is the direct experience of the present (as in "be here now"). When we think about perceived reality, "now" is always a few steps away from our thoughts. First the information has to travel from our senses to brain, and then the thinking process is applied.

But to perceive with a quiet mind somewhat eliminates the mental representation step of truth, so that one is a moment closer to reality. In that experience the mental representation is replaced with more of a reflection of reality. I think one reason we appreciate great musicians and athletes is because they achieve a high degree of oneness with their actions; or why we appreciate a beautiful sunset or the view from a high spot we climb to, when the mind stills and we just soak up the beauty reflected in consciousness.

To the degree we are directly perceiving the present (minus, obviously, the time info takes to traverse our senses), we "know" reality as closely as we ever can while relying on the CNS.[/SIZE]
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:52 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;69611 wrote:
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.


How did they figure it out?


Quote:
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?


So who do you believe?

Quote:
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).


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!

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


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.

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


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 ----------

LWSleeth;69624 wrote:
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.


Hi Les,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me.

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! Smile

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. Smile

Would appreciate any comments.

Rich
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 12:44 pm
@richrf,
richrf;69632 wrote:
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! Smile

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. Smile

Would appreciate any comments.

Rich


[SIZE="3"]Hi Rich, I don't think I would disagree with either of your points, but I might alter slightly your idea that there is no external reality independent of one's self.

Three experiences I regularly have are the experience of myself as an individual, that of an "out there," and an underlying unity of all existence (at least, that's how I've interpreted the experiences). At first those interpretations seemed contradictory to me, but over the years a reconciliation has slowly formed in my understanding.

An analogy I use is one of an ocean, where anywhere you touch the ocean is a unique "point" on/in the ocean, yet that point is a fully integrated part of the whole ocean too. So is there an "external reality" for a point? I'd say, if it could experience, three species of experience would be available. It could experience the uniqueness of its position (since no two points can occupy the same space), it could experience outward, divergently, where it detects events going on in the whole as info arrives to that point (like, say, waves), and it could orient its attention inward, convergently, and experience its own essence and connection to the whole.

Similarly, I experience the uniqueness of my "position" and, as you say, the particular perspective it gives me. I am aware too of lots of info that arrives at my point from "out" beyond my unique position. And then I make an effort to stay inwardly attentive to feel my essential nature and connection to the whole. So for me, while I have interpreted reality as one inseparable whole, I also see, if not complete independence, at least particular potentials of the whole accentuated that give the conscious being discrete avenues of experience.[/SIZE]
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 12:55 pm
@LWSleeth,
[QUOTE=LWSleeth;69650]An analogy I use is one of an ocean, where anywhere you touch the ocean is a unique "point" on/in the ocean, yet that point is a fully integrated part of the whole ocean too. So is there an "external reality" for a point? I'd say, if it could experience, three species of experience would be available. It could experience the uniqueness of its position (since no two points can occupy the same space), it could experience outward, divergently, where it detects events going on in the whole as info arrives to that point (like, say, waves), and it could orient its attention inward, convergently, and experience its own essence and connection to the whole.
[/quote]

Hi Les,

Yes, I use similar thought experiments to try to visualize life. As you, I see us as waves within an ocean. Each experiencing its own existence and each experiencing shared existences with other waves - all at the same time being part of the ocean.

Further, we ourselves are oceans with waves and within us there are many experiences - e.g. the bacteria, virus, cells, etc. that exist within us. Do they also have existences and consciousness within themselves? And what is it that exists when we are asleep. Why do we enter into this different state, where there is no sense of something beyond ourselves? Somethings I contemplate from time to time. :detective:

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 02:54 pm
@richrf,
richrf;69632 wrote:


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. I don't know what you have in mind. Besides, if someone believes it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, that is not his truth. It happens to be true that Quito is the capital. It does not belong to anyone. I think you must have in mind something which is not a matter of truth or falsity, but a matter of what is called "a matter of taste". For example, does chocolate or vanilla ice-cream taste better? If I insisted that chocolate tastes better than vanilla, and furthermore gave an exam and marked someone who said that vanilla tasted better than chocolate, then, it would be proper to say that I was imposing my truth on others. And it would be ridiculous to do that. But are you comparing the question whether chocolate or vanilla tastes better, with the question of whether La Paz or Quito is the capital of Ecuador? So that if a teacher marks someone wrong when he makes a mistake on the capitals question, it is like marking someone wrong concerning chocolate or vanilla? The second (about flavors) would be imposing what the teacher's truth on the student But would the one about capitals be like that? Of course not.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 03:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;69694 wrote:
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?


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.

Quote:
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.


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
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 06:10 pm
@richrf,
richrf;69702 wrote:
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


You think that when the teacher marked it wrong that La Paz was the capital of Ecuador, he was imposing his truth on the student? You have not replied to that. But, no, I don't think that everything I learned in school was true. But most of it was. In any case, I think you should answer my specific question about the capital of Ecuador. 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.
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 06:42 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;69740 wrote:
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. Smile

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 07:04 pm
@richrf,
richrf;69752 wrote:
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. Smile

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?
 
richrf
 
Reply Tue 16 Jun, 2009 10:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;69764 wrote:
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?


Hi,

I look at education in the context of human life and what it is producing. Basically conformity, which I think you might actually like. It is useful to know how to get right answers, obey instructions, conform to hierarchies. But it is also useful to do otherwise. I was a bit of a rebel and sometimes I got my A and sometimes I didn't, depending upon which side of me was answering the questions. Smile

As for medical students, ..... Let's say, I wouldn't want any of them go near my body. I am in a different space. The ultimate product of our educational system.

Rich
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:12 am
@richrf,
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.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 01:02 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;69821 wrote:
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
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 01:42 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235;69821 wrote:
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.


No one is silly enough to say that the capital of Ecuador must always be Quito. There may have been a time when it wasn't, and there may be a time it will not be. It is certainly true that there was a time when there was not only no Quito, but no Ecuador. That doesn't show that truth changes. That shows that what is true changes. What does not change that it is true that on June 17, 2009, the time of this writing, that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. It was true a million years ago, and it will be true a million years from now. Even if the capital of Ecuador is changed to Guyaquil (Ecuador's second city) tomorrow, it will still be true that on June 17. 2009 Quito is Ecuador's capital.

I am afraid I don't see the difference between the two kinds of truths you cite in your second paragraph. It may be that one kind is "more strongly verifiable" than the other (although I don't even see this). But that is not a difference in the kind of truth each has. It is a difference in how we determine the truth. However we determine what is true, what is true is true in the same way.

---------- Post added at 04:01 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:42 AM ----------

richrf;69829 wrote:
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


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?

Are you asking whether if you believe vaccinations will kill you, and everyone else thinks vaccinations won't kill you, which belief is true? Or are you asking whether if you think that vaccinations will kill you, but everyone else does not think that vaccinations will kill them, which belief is true. Well, if you mean the first, it depend on who is right. It may be that you have a specific immunity reaction to vaccination, and that it will kill you. And those who say it won't are wrong, and you are right. But it may be that you have a normal immunity reaction, and vaccinations won't kill you, in which case, the others are right and you are wrong. Obviously that question cannot be answered unless we have enough information to answer it. If you are asking the second question, again, that question cannot be answered unless we have more information. But of course, both you, and the others may both be right. Vaccinations may kill you, and not kill them; or vaccinations may kill both you and them, and so on.

Why would you think that we can answer questions when we do not have enough information to do so, or that that means that there is no truth. Naturally without the information we cannot know what the truth is. But how, on earth does that mean (as you imply) that there is no truth to know?

When enough information is gathered to answer the question, and if people are rational, agreement about the right answer is possible. But you cannot use an an argument that there is no truth, that agreement is not possible if there is not enough information. Of course, without enough information agreement is impossible. Who would think it is possible without the information? 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?
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 07:29 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;69832 wrote:
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
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 08:50 am
@richrf,
richrf;69875 wrote:
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, what is your point? People agree on what is the truth, and people disagree too. But what has that to do with what the facts actually are? Nothing, that I can see, except that the agreement of the majority of people indicate where the truth lies, but not, of course, necessarily. How we describe things is, of course, a matter of language, and language is a series of conventions (agreements) that words and sentences will mean so-and-so. That Brutus killed Caesar is true because, first, we agree that "Brutus" refers to Brutus; "killed" refers to what it refers to; and "Caesar" refers to Caesar; And second because Brutus did kill Caesar. If "Brutus" referred to the man, Caesar, and if "Caesar" referred to the man Brutus, then, "Brutus killed Caesar" would be false. Agreement about truth is a product of convention and fact. So that for there to be agreement about truth, people have to agree on both language and fact. But, of course, what the facts themselves are, is independent of agreement, and so, independent of how they happen to be described.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 09:07 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;69885 wrote:
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
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:18 pm
@richrf,
richrf;69888 wrote:
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. There may be a number of reasons why I cannot persuade you that what I believe is true: for instance, my inability to present a persuasive argument; or, your inability to understand the argument; or, your unwillingness to believe that what is true is, in fact true. So, whether or not I can persuade you that what I believe is true has very little to do with whether what I believe is true or not.

I still don't know what you mean by someone imposing what he believes is true on you. I have asked you that question several times, but have yet to get a reply. For instance, do you think that if I point out to you that what you believe is false, that I am trying to impose what I believe is true on you? Or (a question I have asked before) if you are taking an exam, and I mark a false answer as false, am I trying to impose what I believe is true on you? It is all very vague, you see.

It is all very Liberal (capital "L") to hold that that there are no truths, and that we should all believe as we like. But, of course, it is all nonsense, since reality bites. And it really will not do to think that, for instance, North Korea or Iran are not making nuclear weapons if they are. Not even if it would be oh, so Liberal not to impose our truth on them, or those who would like to think they are not making nuclear weapons.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 12:31 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;69910 wrote:
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
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 03:05 pm
@richrf,
richrf;69913 wrote:
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.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 04:58 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;69930 wrote:
I don't see how you can agree after what you have been arguing. But I suppose I should be thankful even for inconsistencies.


Hi,

I simply agree: "Whether I can persuade you that what I believe is true is irrelevant to whether what I believe is true."

I agree. You can believe whatever you want to be true, and ditto for myself. In my case, I don't believe anything is true, I believe that it may possibly be true - at least for that instance in time. And then we have to deal with the next instance, if it happens. Smile

Rich
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 11:58:43