Hijacking the word "True"

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Hijacking the word "True"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

dawoel
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 08:56 am
I am now deeply confused, as one of the most fundamental principles on which I philosophise has been challenged, this principle being what "True" really means...My understanding of some of these terms:

Subjective: Depends of a person's point of view.
Objective: True or false (exclusively) regardless of any point of view.
True: Impossible to be False
False: Impossible to be True
Opinion: One's feelings towards a fact (Subjective)
Belief: An Impression that a fact is true (Objective)
Knowledge: Belief that has been significantly justified by evidence and proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and is thus unlikely to be false (Objective)
Certainty: Knowledge that has been proven 100% Likely to be true (True)
Paradox: Something that claims both truth and fallacy at the same time (False)

Now in another thread, someone told me that a great many philosophies argue against this...How on earth can you argue with this?

As an example he said "Suppose two people go towards a traffic light and one says stop its red! The other keeps walking and says "why? Its green!" What colour are the lights?" My problem here is that he has completely Hijacked the word "true" and shoved it in the same boat as "believed". Yes, one has the impression that it is red, whilst the other that it is green, these are both their beliefs, and it is true that they hold these beliefs. That says nothing of what the reality of the situation is. In reality, there are only two options, true that it is red, or false that it is red (I'm assuming here the lights are working properly). If green is true then red is false, and if red is true then green is false, because that is how traffic lights operate otherwise nobody would survive crossing the road. Truth is impossible to be false, and by selecting both true options you get two false ones also by dint of their implication statements, hence, it is not true that it is both green and red, if this is not true then this must be false for there are no other options.

Truth is merciless it cares not what you think, it just is what it is regardless of you. At least that is my understanding, anything else I do not call truth on principle, because what use is a concept like truth if it is flexible? We have words like "belief" and "opinion" that are perfectly sufficient for describing the more flexible epistemological subjects, so why Hijack the word truth like this?
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 09:07 am
@dawoel,
dawoel;75911 wrote:
Truth is merciless it cares not what you think, it just is what it is regardless of you. At least that is my understanding, anything else I do not call truth on principle, because what use is the word truth if it means something else? We have words knowledge, belief and opinion that are perfectly sufficient for describing the other epistemological subjects, so why Hijack the word truth like this?


Hi,

I guess you have to ask yourself, how will you find the Truth? If you can, without using your own subjective mind (consciousness), then you may be able to find an independent truth. But the moment you use your mind, you may start introducing your own experiences, skills, knowledge, perspective, biases, senses, which may be different from someone else's.

Can you disentangle yourself from the event of knowing? I have not found a way, and I believe it is inherent the universe. Just like a hologram relies on light to illuminate and a mind (consciousness) to observe.

The concepts of right, wrong, true, false, may just be an expedient educational device to train people to live in a culture/society. These notions may come under duress in individual situations. Observe, how people will debate the notion of Truth, and observe the many different perspectives. You have articulated yours. I have articulated mine. There are many, many more to come. Which viewpoint is true? Smile

Rich
 
jgweed
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 09:12 am
@dawoel,
Well, doesn't it seem that many very important words are used to cover all sorts of very specific meanings. Any dictionary will list all sorts of variations for, e.g., "true." And part of the job of philosophy is to draw distinctions between the various definitions, and to provide guidance for their uses.
It certainly has been a part of the tradition that these key words have been central to each philosopher's positions, most likely because each realises that these key words are important and deserve closer scrutiny than a common or casual use of them suggests.
Epistemologically speaking, one should not be surprised that "truth" has been defined, then, in so many ways; it is the cornerstone of any doctrine of knowing, and doctrines seem to require for their expression, a very precise (sometimes unique) definition. Think for example, of Heidegger's hyphenated terms, or of Plato's use of "idea" or "form," or of Nietzsche's use of Dionysian.
It isn't a "hijacking" of a word, at least in a pejorative sense like hijacking a thread in a forum, but isn't it rather an attempt to more completely and more precisely make us think about that word, and to make it a vehicle for communicating some very complex thinking? I remember one of my professors remarking in class that half the battle for understanding a philosopher was to figure out how his vocabulary differed. . . .
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 09:13 am
@dawoel,
dawoel;75911 wrote:



True: Impossible to be False
False: Impossible to be True




Why would you think that it is impossible for a true statement to be false, or that it is impossible for a false statement to be true.

It is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but it is certainly possible that it is false. It is possible that in the last half hour, the Ecuadorean Assembly passed a measure which moved the capital for Quito to the second city of Ecuador, Guyaquil. It did not happen, But it was possible. And so, although it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, it is possible that it is false. And, of course, it is false that Guyaquil is the capital of Ecuador, but it is possible that it is true. For the same reason I gave above to show that it is possible that it is false that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. It is possible for a true statement to be false if the negation of that statement is logically possible. What is not a contradiction is logically possible.
 
dawoel
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 09:38 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;75915 wrote:
Why would you think that it is impossible for a true statement to be false, or that it is impossible for a false statement to be true.

It is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, but it is certainly possible that it is false. It is possible that in the last half hour, the Ecuadorean Assembly passed a measure which moved the capital for Quito to the second city of Ecuador, Guyaquil. It did not happen, But it was possible. And so, although it is true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, it is possible that it is false. And, of course, it is false that Guyaquil is the capital of Ecuador, but it is possible that it is true. For the same reason I gave above to show that it is possible that it is false that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. It is possible for a true statement to be false if the negation of that statement is logically possible. What is not a contradiction is logically possible.


If it is True that Quito is the capital of Ecuador and you are certain of this, then no, it is not possible for it to be false, because that would contradict Leibniz's law surely, that two things with alternate properties are identical! The reason you say it is possible to be false is that you are not certain that it is genuinely true. As far as I can tell, probability is a predictive system, and thus only applies to future events, in this case, confirmation that Quito is the capital, until you find out it is open to possibility i.e. alternative prediction. Once something is or has been, it either is or is not, was or was not, and thus either has a probability of 1 or 0. So if something "is", it can't "not be", for the two meanings are opposites, they have different properties, thus cannot be identical.

Certainty, knowledge and belief all revolve around our understand of a fact, which may be accurate or not depending on how resourceful and/or observant we are...but they have no impact on the reality of these facts that we think we understand, that are what they are regardless of our thoughts on them.

I think people confuse probability and chance. Random implies that an event has no cause, but probability is merely a method of predicting outcomes that we don't yet understand or know what they will be. The two often coincide of course but they are not the same thing. Just because I assign a 50/50 chance of the coin landing doesn't actually mean that nothing causes it to go one way or the other, it is confusing I know, but if there are a set of causes that balance it to land on heads, then those causes being so, it was always going to land on heads. The reason I assinged a probability of 50/50 was that all the causes where not known to me, so as far as my knowledge of the future was concerned it could have gone either way, but again, that doesn't mean that it wasn't always going to be heads. Maybe I've gotten off topic? I'll stop now...

But answering your post, you say the statement that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is "true", IF it is Really true, then how can it be false? Really? Think about it. Your knowledge or ignorance over it's truth value doesn't have affect the reality of it. It is a kind of solipsistic idea in fact to suggest that whole of reality will revolve around what I know or don't know!
 
jgweed
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 09:58 am
@dawoel,
But does not this discussion of something being true or not at a certain time, depend upon a particular definition of truth (that it is eternally true, absolutely true, or what have you). If one accepts THIS definition as binding, true, or appropriate, then some conclusions follow. But what if this definition were not appropriate in this, and like, examples?
 
William
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 10:03 am
@dawoel,
There is no such thing as "a truth". To arrive at "a truth" one needs to "know" all there is about that which is professed to be true. That literally is impossible. It is the search for truth that drives humanity, IMO. A destination we will not know in it's entire nature. It is the journey that is what life is about. For instance the 'truth' about evolution as we assume we, the human being, is animal is an "assumption" based on selective evidence that leads to the assumption; still it is conjecture, hypothesis and speculation at best. IMO. There is no way we can know the "all" of it no matter how deep we delve into that "dissection" process. In that dissection process we get "erroneous" mixed "signals" that were not meant to be disturbed or tampered with. We didn't realize that but the truth of the matter we will come to realize that "truth" as we get deeper and deeper confused as to what "do not disturb" really means.

William
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 10:12 am
@William,
William;75929 wrote:
as we get deeper and deeper confused as to what "do not disturb" really means.

William


I tend to agree.

It is possible to view the universe as a set of objects, or alternatively as a set of interactions. I prefer the latter. In either case, it is speculation at the moment. There is no way that I can determine to know something without my mind (consciousness).

If there is some truth that is external to our Mind, it would seem that it would have to be speculation at the moment, unless we are somehow able to transcend our own minds (consciousness).

The universe that my consciousness is involved with is one of interactions of ..... waves. Of course, we now have to imagine what are these waves and where are they coming from. Other consciousnesses?

Rich

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 11:14 AM ----------

jgweed;75928 wrote:
But does not this discussion of something being true or not at a certain time, depend upon a particular definition of truth (that it is eternally true, absolutely true, or what have you). If one accepts THIS definition as binding, true, or appropriate, then some conclusions follow. But what if this definition were not appropriate in this, and like, examples?


Hi,

I agree. People tend to use the word differently depending upon how they are perceiving the question.

In this case, it seems like dawoel is using the word in the sense that there is an external truth independent of any observation, and somehow we are to determine what it is. However, I could be wrong in how I am understanding the question.

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 10:21 am
@dawoel,
dawoel;75923 wrote:
If it is True that Quito is the capital of Ecuador and you are certain of this, then no, it is not possible for it to be false, because that would contradict Leibniz's law surely, that two things with alternate properties are identical! The reason you say it is possible to be false is that you are not certain that it is genuinely true. As far as I can tell, probability is a predictive system, and thus only applies to future events, in this case, confirmation that Quito is the capital, until you find out it is open to possibility i.e. alternative prediction. Once something is or has been, it either is or is not, was or was not, and thus either has a probability of 1 or 0. So if something "is", it can't "not be", for the two meanings are opposites, they have different properties, thus cannot be identical.

Certainty, knowledge and belief all revolve around our understand of a fact, which may be accurate or not depending on how resourceful and/or observant we are...but they have no impact on the reality of these facts that we think we understand, that are what they are regardless of our thoughts on them.

I think people confuse probability and chance. Random implies that an event has no cause, but probability is merely a method of predicting outcomes that we don't yet understand or know what they will be. The two often coincide of course but they are not the same thing. Just because I assign a 50/50 chance of the coin landing doesn't actually mean that nothing causes it to go one way or the other, it is confusing I know, but if there are a set of causes that balance it to land on heads, then those causes being so, it was always going to land on heads. The reason I assinged a probability of 50/50 was that all the causes where not known to me, so as far as my knowledge of the future was concerned it could have gone either way, but again, that doesn't mean that it wasn't always going to be heads. Maybe I've gotten off topic? I'll stop now...

But answering your post, you say the statement that Quito is the capital of Ecuador is "true", IF it is Really true, then how can it be false? Really? Think about it. Your knowledge or ignorance over it's truth value doesn't have affect the reality of it. It is a kind of solipsistic idea in fact to suggest that whole of reality will revolve around what I know or don't know!


It is possible that the statement that Quito is the capital is false because, as I said, its negation is not self-contradictory, and any true statement who negation is not self-contradictory could be false, although it is not false. Sometimes, the phrase, "it is possible that P is false" simply means, something like, "for all I know, P is false". But, even if P is true, it may still be the case that for all I know, P is false. I do not know that every true statement is true, after all. Maybe you are thinking this: if I say that p is true, then I am implying that I know it is, and then, I should not say that it is possible that it is false, because then, I am saying that p may not be true, when I am implying I know it is true. But that has to do with saying things, not with how things are, whether or not I say them.

As I pointed out, even if it is true (I don't know what "really true" means except just "true") it might be false, only it isn't false. I describe circumstances under which it might be false. If the capital had been changed it might be false. But, of course, it wasn't changed, so it is (actually) true. There is a big difference between the possibility of error, and the actuality of error, don't you think?

If I know something is true, then it is true. Otherwise, I would not know it is true in the first place. I would only believe I know it is true. So I don't know what you mean when you say that reality does not revolved around what I know. Of course, I don't know whatever is true. No one knows that. But whatever I know is true.

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 12:27 PM ----------

jgweed;75928 wrote:
But does not this discussion of something being true or not at a certain time, depend upon a particular definition of truth (that it is eternally true, absolutely true, or what have you). If one accepts THIS definition as binding, true, or appropriate, then some conclusions follow. But what if this definition were not appropriate in this, and like, examples?


Why would the fact that the term "true" is qualified in one or another way change the meaning of the term "true"? Suppose I quality the term, "rock". "Hard rock", "porous rock", "crumbly rock", "dirty rock". The term "rock" means the same, doesn't it? Or take the word, "contract". "Binding contract", "important contract", "interesting contract", etc. All are contracts.

"Absolute truth" usually means, "a truth I am certain is true", "eternal truth" is a truth which has always been, and will always be, true. But both are truths in the same meaning of the word "true". (An a priori truth, independent of any observation, is still a truth. "A priori"" just says how the truth is known. It doesn't change the meaning of "truth")
 
William
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 11:07 am
@richrf,
richrf;75932 wrote:
I tend to agree........
The universe that my consciousness is involved with is one of interactions of ..... waves. Of course, we now have to imagine what are these waves and where are they coming from. Other consciousnesses?
Rich


Great observation. Other consciousnesses? In that we can perceive our 'connection' to that oneness, what it is that "invades" that "fearful mind or consciousness", as it were. The mind, not unlike the body, was not meant to be "disturbed". Once it is invaded with "erroneous" knowledge it gets "mixed signals" all of which it efforts to assimilate that creates "stress" that can be equated to "data overload". Like putting jet fuel in a volkswagon. Ha. Resulting in "burn out". The mind, consciousness, wasn't designed to handle that much, that fast. So it could be conceived, just as the engine that needs an overhaul due to abuse, the inexplicable "soul" of man, in death goes through such an overhaul that will slow him down so he can go from a volkswagan to a mazda for instance. All within a structure that allows ease of advancement without that abuse of going too fast inevitably will lead to; another overload. There is a pace and a resonance that will connect all to each other that will lead to a 'harmony" of individual consciousnesses that will unite our collective being that is hard to imagine. I know because I have witnessed it in action more times than I can to mention. Why? It is hard for others to conceive this and it takes a little while and it depends on the speed in which one travels mentally and physically and "what kind of fuel" they are operating with (overall knowledge; good, bad or ugly).

When a person is afraid, they open themselves up seeking any means to quell those fears and in doing so become vulnerable to the imposed inertia of another that only adds to the information being assimilated by the mind. When one is "not" afraid, the mind will assess all the information in it "storage" and use it accordingly maintaining it's 'intergrity' and easing the stress on the individual. The mind in this relaxed state, taps into the universal mind that is connected to us all that will protect, guide and maintain that pace amid the "chaos". IMO. Well, this is more than an "opinion" on my part, but let's just call it an opinion for the time being.

Yes, Rich; in my opinion there are "other consciousnesses' some 6 and 1/2 billion of them and they will connect once we align with that "missing link". Ha. Guess who that is. Hmmmm? :a-ok:

William
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 11:17 am
@William,
William;75937 wrote:
Great observation.

That's an observation?

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 01:21 PM ----------

richrf;75913 wrote:
Hi,

I guess you have to ask yourself, how will you find the Truth? If you can, without using your own subjective mind (consciousness), then you may be able to find an independent truth. But the moment you use your mind, you may start introducing your own experiences, skills, knowledge, perspective, biases, senses, which may be different from someone else's.

Can you disentangle yourself from the event of knowing? I have not found a way, and I believe it is inherent the universe. Just like a hologram relies on light to illuminate and a mind (consciousness) to observe.

The concepts of right, wrong, true, false, may just be an expedient educational device to train people to live in a culture/society. These notions may come under duress in individual situations. Observe, how people will debate the notion of Truth, and observe the many different perspectives. You have articulated yours. I have articulated mine. There are many, many more to come. Which viewpoint is true? Smile

Rich


Absolutely. It is true that it is pouring outside, is not a truth. It is just an expedient educational device. If it were not true that it is pouring, what would how would we be educating anyone by telling them it is pouring?
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 11:30 am
@William,
William;75937 wrote:
in death goes through such an overhaul that will slow him down so he can go from a volkswagan to a mazda for instance.


Yes. The way I look at it is a chance for a fresh start.

Quote:
All within a structure that allows ease of advancement without that abuse of going too fast inevitably will lead to;
Yes, I think that the physical body has limits and when they are exceeded in either direction, it does not function well. For example, I can't believe that people run marathons. The first person to run a marathon died! Smile Are we trying to replicate this feat?

In any case, we do things and then we die. Each person does as he/she sees fit. Now, if there is a transcendental soul, then we have a chance to a fresh start with the skills and knowledge that we learned. This is what it sometimes referred to as inherited characteristics, innate knowledge, or instincts, - which are different from person to person (soul to soul) depending upon what they have learned.

Quote:
The mind in this relaxed state, taps into the universal mind that is connected to us all that will protect, guide and maintain that pace amid the "chaos".
I would agree. It does seem that we become more aware as navigators in a relaxed state.

Quote:
Yes, Rich; in my opinion there are "other consciousnesses' some 6 and 1/2 billion of them and they will connect once we align with that "missing link".
And maybe more. It is difficult for me to say for sure where individual consciousness begins and ends. :detective:

Rich
William[/QUOTE]

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 12:38 PM ----------

kennethamy;75939 wrote:
Absolutely. It is true that it is pouring outside, is not a truth. It is just an expedient educational device. If it were not true that it is pouring, what would how would we be educating anyone by telling them it is pouring?


If you see it pouring outside, then that is fine. You can relate it to me if you wish. I can choose to believe you or not to believe you. This is a matter of how much I trust you, your senses, your mode of communication (for example, originally I had no idea what you meant by pouring, and had to read the message several times), the means that you communicate, and how much I trust my own senses. All of these factors intersect as an event is created.

What you are suggesting to me sounds like how two or more people communicate ideas between each other, how much they trust their own perception of the ideas, and how they resolve any differences. That is, what I call reaching a consensus so that they can move on and do something else in their lives.

If they do not agree on what is true, they can keep discussing it, end the discussion, pretend they agree, think they agree or whatever until something new happens. This is how one mind (consciousness) interacts with another.

For me, it is a matter of learning to deal with the concept of uncertainty - e.g. what happens after death.

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 12:05 pm
@richrf,
richrf;75943 wrote:
Yes. The way I look at it is a chance for a fresh start.

Yes, I think that the physical body has limits and when they are exceeded in either direction, it does not function well. For example, I can't believe that people run marathons. The first person to run a marathon died! Smile Are we trying to replicate this feat?

In any case, we do things and then we die. Each person does as he/she sees fit. Now, if there is a transcendental soul, then we have a chance to a fresh start with the skills and knowledge that we learned. This is what it sometimes referred to as inherited characteristics, innate knowledge, or instincts, - which are different from person to person (soul to soul) depending upon what they have learned.

I would agree. It does seem that we become more aware as navigators in a relaxed state.

And maybe more. It is difficult for me to say for sure where individual consciousness begins and ends. :detective:

Rich
William


---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 12:38 PM ----------



If you see it pouring outside, then that is fine. You can relate it to me if you wish. I can choose to believe you or not to believe you. This is a matter of how much I trust you, your senses, your mode of communication (for example, originally I had no idea what you meant by pouring, and had to read the message several times), the means that you communicate, and how much I trust my own senses. All of these factors intersect as an event is created.

What you are suggesting to me sounds like how two or more people communicate ideas between each other, how much they trust their own perception of the ideas, and how they resolve any differences. That is, what I call reaching a consensus so that they can move on and do something else in their lives.

If they do not agree on what is true, they can keep discussing it, end the discussion, pretend they agree, think they agree or whatever until something new happens. This is how one mind (consciousness) interacts with another.

For me, it is a matter of learning to deal with the concept of uncertainty - e.g. what happens after death.

Rich[/QUOTE]
But what has that to do with whether it is raining or not? It may, rain and no one believe it; or it may rain, and everyone believe it; or it may rain and some people believe it; and some people not believe it; or it may rain and no people exist to believe it or not believe it. Believing it rains has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it rains. Believing something is true or false is completely independent of whether it is true or false. What makes you think that whether something is true has anything to do with whether you, or anyone, believes it is true?
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 12:19 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;75947 wrote:
What makes you think that whether something is true has anything to do with whether you, or anyone, believes it is true?


Because I cannot see how one can disentangle the mind (consciousness) from the equation.

You see something that looks like rain.
You feel something that looks like rain.
You hear something that looks looks like rain.
You may even smell something that feels like rain.

So based upon your senses (your nervous system) your mind (consciousness) suggests to itself that this is something called rain. All o your senses are based upon the interaction of elementary particle/waves.

You can conclude as such, if you wish and you trust your senses and your mind enough. The mind appears to see things differently under different circumstances, e.g. sleeping, hallucinations, dementia, etc.

The word rain is a symbol that allows you (your mind) to communicate this sense within yourself that it raining. You can use different means to communicate this sense to someone else, and that person's mind (consciousness) will draw some conclusion.

In other words, the mind is totally entangled in every observation/event. It cannot be separated as far as I can tell. Therefore, what may be true in your mind may not be true in mine. They are different.

Rich
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 12:42 pm
@richrf,
richrf;75948 wrote:
Because I cannot see how one can disentangle the mind (consciousness) from the equation.

You see something that looks like rain.
You feel something that looks like rain.
You hear something that looks looks like rain.
You may even smell something that feels like rain.

So based upon your senses (your nervous system) your mind (consciousness) suggests to itself that this is something called rain. All o your senses are based upon the interaction of elementary particle/waves.

You can conclude as such, if you wish and you trust your senses and your mind enough. The mind appears to see things differently under different circumstances, e.g. sleeping, hallucinations, dementia, etc.

The word rain is a symbol that allows you (your mind) to communicate this sense within yourself that it raining. You can use different means to communicate this sense to someone else, and that person's mind (consciousness) will draw some conclusion.

In other words, the mind is totally entangled in every observation/event. It cannot be separated as far as I can tell. Therefore, what may be true in your mind may not be true in mine. They are different.

Rich


But whether it rains or not has nothing whatever to do with whether you are conscious of its raining, or even whether you are conscious, or even whether you exist. It rained before you were born, and it will rain after you are dead. What have you to do with whether or not it rains? Nothing. (I am not talking about the word, "rain" nor about believing that it is raining. I am talking about-rain. That there is rain does not depend on their being the word, "rain", nor does it depend on anyone believing that it is raining.
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 12:57 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;75952 wrote:
But whether it rains or not has nothing whatever to do with whether you are conscious of its raining, or even whether you are conscious, or even whether you exist.


How did you arrive at this? Did you use your mind?

Rich
 
nameless
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 02:45 pm
@dawoel,
Perspective ... context!

"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -Robert Anton Wilson
 
William
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 03:28 pm
@dawoel,
Rich and Ken,
Perhaps the quibbling we are experiencing here, and pardon me for using that word, is maybe we can find a "difference" that is indeed that we can state as a "all conclusive fact" and what is truth. I understand what Ken is saying and to the extreme Rich is carrying it. It's when those "facts" are not all conclusive, we run into trouble, like evolution for instance, or the big bang.

Now in observing the term "pouring" as it relates to "just raining heavily" is IMO not accurate in that pouring would mean to me the same a "pouring water out of a glass", and it that respect it would not be true. Rain does not pour out of clouds. Yet most will conclude yes, it is pouring provided they speak the same language and use such expletives and are familiar with them. What is true, IMO is that ALL can understand without the need to "over-emphasize" it as it aligns harmonically with their own understanding. LIke "telling it like it actually is".

We have the uncanny talent of "twisting perceived truths" that will indeed make them "appear" as "universal truths" which I feel are two very different paradigms. One we can survive with that temporarily eases our mind, but if it is wrong, it will come to pass as we evidence what that "fabricated truth" reaps. Such as "abortion" for instance. We fabricated the idea that is was true that a woman had the right to destroy her unborn child. Yet, when we observe all the ramifications of that, it is apparent it was the wrong thing to do when we observe the reality that has IMO, damaged the universal man/woman/child paradigm that is necessary for life to exist.

So, I think, it is important to bring language down to the lowest common denominator so all can understand it as we travel forward. We have 'fabricated' a language that excuses all of our wrongs and that just ain't gonna git it.

So in my opinion, the statement "it's pouring rain outside" can be interpreted as un-true to those who do not understand the language. If we are to ever communicate this must be our first objective; to clean up our "manners" in how we communicate that will affect the manner in which we communicate.

I realize this amounts to swatting a fly with a sledge hammer, but I thought it appropriate. If what can be communicated as fact that which is perceived as fact to all, then it can be a truth until it is found to need some "altering" at which time all will agree such alterations are appropriate which is called positive, harmonic, collective effererscence, which the opposite is called mass hysteria which is close to what the chaos in the world is heading toward. Though I would like to think communication such as we are having now are inroads to repairing that "group think tank". IMMHO. :a-ok:

William
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:00 pm
@richrf,
richrf;75956 wrote:
How did you arrive at this? Did you use your mind?

Rich


Yes, I hope so. What has that to do with it? We arrived at the conclusion that table salt is NaCl by using our minds. What has that to do with table salt? The fact that we know that table salt is NaCl by using our minds does not imply that table salt is "mental", whatever that would mean.

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 06:01 PM ----------

William;75976 wrote:
Rich and Ken,
Perhaps the quibbling we are experiencing here, and pardon me for using that word, is maybe we can find a "difference" that is indeed that we can state as a "all conclusive fact" and what is truth. I understand what Ken is saying and to the extreme Rich is carrying it. It's when those "facts" are not all conclusive, we run into trouble, like evolution for instance, or the big bang.

Now in observing the term "pouring" as it relates to "just raining heavily" is IMO not accurate in that pouring would mean to me the same a "pouring water out of a glass", and it that respect it would not be true. Rain does not pour out of clouds. Yet most will conclude yes, it is pouring provided they speak the same language and use such expletives and are familiar with them. What is true, IMO is that ALL can understand without the need to "over-emphasize" it as it aligns harmonically with their own understanding. LIke "telling it like it actually is".

We have the uncanny talent of "twisting perceived truths" that will indeed make them "appear" as "universal truths" which I feel are two very different paradigms. One we can survive with that temporarily eases our mind, but if it is wrong, it will come to pass as we evidence what that "fabricated truth" reaps. Such as "abortion" for instance. We fabricated the idea that is was true that a woman had the right to destroy her unborn child. Yet, when we observe all the ramifications of that, it is apparent it was the wrong thing to do when we observe the reality that has IMO, damaged the universal man/woman/child paradigm that is necessary for life to exist.

So, I think, it is important to bring language down to the lowest common denominator so all can understand it as we travel forward. We have 'fabricated' a language that excuses all of our wrongs and that just ain't gonna git it.

So in my opinion, the statement "it's pouring rain outside" can be interpreted as un-true to those who do not understand the language. If we are to ever communicate this must be our first objective; to clean up our "manners" in how we communicate that will affect the manner in which we communicate.

I realize this amounts to swatting a fly with a sledge hammer, but I thought it appropriate. If what can be communicated as fact that which is perceived as fact to all, then it can be a truth until it is found to need some "altering" at which time all will agree such alterations are appropriate which is called positive, harmonic, collective effererscence, which the opposite is called mass hysteria which is close to what the chaos in the world is heading toward. Though I would like to think communication such as we are having now are inroads to repairing that "group think tank". IMMHO. :a-ok:

William


Never mind, "pouring". I am sorry I used it. Stick to, "It is raining".
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:21 pm
@William,
William;75976 wrote:
Rich and Ken,
Perhaps the quibbling we are experiencing here, and pardon me for using that word, is maybe we can find a "difference" that is indeed that we can state as a "all conclusive fact" and what is truth.


Hi William,

What I think is happening here is actually very simple, but maybe harder to swallow.

It appears to some people that there are distinct objects in the world that are simply separate from each other and somehow, (by what means I am not sure), it is possible to discern the truth about these objects independent of the mind.

Others, such as me, believe that everything is entangled, and that there are no distinct, independent objects. After all, ultimately, everything is composed of elementary wave/particles - whatever they might be. They certainly aren't solid. In my perception of the world, everything is waves (like a hologram) that is illuminated by light (wave/particles), creating three dimensional forms. However, a hologram is not solid. So how does everything become solid. Well, the simple answer is in exactly the same way that any elementary wave/particle becomes solid .... by applying more energy: e=mc**2.



Rich
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Epistemology
  3. » Hijacking the word "True"
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:15:33