Hijacking the word "True"

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

William
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:21 pm
@dawoel,
Ken,

Okay, then that is a unversally understood fact. No one will argue that point. But I also thnk it a bit trivial as it relates to those "facts" that will lead to a better understanding. Don't forget there are those who do not understand the word "raining"; they have a completely different word that constitutes that meaning. How will you communicate with them? Cooperative communication is everything, IMO. Let's not get bogged down in trivialities, for it only makes effective communication even worse. IMO. Try to explain to a blind person that has never seen an apple, what "the apple is red" means. That boggles the mind. Let's not try to boggle it even more.

William
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 04:29 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;75980 wrote:
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.


I am only suggesting that your mind is involved in everything you think and my mind is involved with everything that I think, and there is no way that I can see to disentangle the observer from the observed. In other words, there does not seem to be a mind independent truth.

What ever you perceive is based upon your senses and your mind and what ever you transmit is dependent upon the same, and whatever I perceive from you or otherwise is the same. It is all completely entangled. It would be like trying to separate the light waves/particles that are creating the hologram from the source waves and the hologram itself. They all seem to be entangled to produce the ultimate image.

Rich:01 PM ----------

 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 08:43 pm
@richrf,
richrf;75987 wrote:
I am only suggesting that your mind is involved in everything you think and my mind is involved with everything that I think, and there is no way that I can see to disentangle the observer from the observed. In other words, there does not seem to be a mind independent truth.

What ever you perceive is based upon your senses and your mind and what ever you transmit is dependent upon the same, and whatever I perceive from you or otherwise is the same. It is all completely entangled. It would be like trying to separate the light waves/particles that are creating the hologram from the source waves and the hologram itself. They all seem to be entangled to produce the ultimate image.

Rich:01 PM ----------



That my mind is involved in everything I think is a tautology. So I would not deny that. But that does not mean that my mind is involved with whatever is the object of my thinking. That would be a non-sequitur.
For instance, my mind is involved with thinking about a rock, but it does not follow that my mind is involved with the rock I am thinking about. I can certainly think about something that does not exist, just as I can search for something that does not exist, like Ponce' de Leon, and The Fountain of Youth.

---------- Post added 07-08-2009 at 10:50 PM ----------

William;75984 wrote:
Ken,

Okay, then that is a unversally understood fact. No one will argue that point. But I also thnk it a bit trivial as it relates to those "facts" that will lead to a better understanding. Don't forget there are those who do not understand the word "raining"; they have a completely different word that constitutes that meaning. How will you communicate with them? Cooperative communication is everything, IMO. Let's not get bogged down in trivialities, for it only makes effective communication even worse. IMO. Try to explain to a blind person that has never seen an apple, what "the apple is red" means. That boggles the mind. Let's not try to boggle it even more.

William


I don't think I understand what it is you are arguing for. What I have been maintaining that that there are things that exist, and facts that are true, independently of thought or consciousness. Isn't it clear to you that before there were people or animals who were conscious, that there were objects like the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars, as well as the planet Earth? And that therefore, there were things that exist independently of human thought or consciousness?
 
richrf
 
Reply Wed 8 Jul, 2009 09:18 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;76015 wrote:
That my mind is involved in everything I think is a tautology. So I would not deny that. But that does not mean that my mind is involved with whatever is the object of my thinking. That would be a non-sequitur.
For instance, my mind is involved with thinking about a rock, but it does not follow that my mind is involved with the rock I am thinking about. I can certainly think about something that does not exist, just as I can search for something that does not exist, like Ponce' de Leon, and The Fountain of Youth.


I am not suggesting that everything that you think about is external to the boundaries of your physical body. You can have self-emotions that you think about. I am only suggesting that whatever you are thinking about, your mind is involved. It is entangled with whatever you perceive. Try eliminating the light from the hologram and observe what happens. The same thing happens when you eliminate your mind from what it is perceiving. It goes away. The two are intertwined.

Rich
 
dawoel
 
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 03:43 am
@dawoel,
But is it possible, that there is an underlying, universal truth that is unaffected by people's beliefs? Surely if there is a universal reality that applies to everyone whether they know it or not (the alternative being solipsism), there must be a universal truth. In other words if stuff is real regardless of what people think, then stuff is true regardless of what people think. It is almost as if people are suggesting that it is impossible to be wrong in anything! In which case, why do we even have words like "false" and "true" when "belief" sums it up perfectly! If there is only one universal truth, and there are two conflicting ideas of the truth, then at least one person is false.

I don't know if other stuff besides me exists, I think it does, and if it does then there is a universal truth, thus one can either be true in a statement, or false, and two conflicting ones can't both be true if their implications are that they exclude each other. It's like putting a snake and a mongoose togethar and expecting them to play nicely.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 9 Jul, 2009 06:34 am
@dawoel,
dawoel;76039 wrote:
But is it possible, that there is an underlying, universal truth that is unaffected by people's beliefs? Surely if there is a universal reality that applies to everyone whether they know it or not (the alternative being solipsism), there must be a universal truth. In other words if stuff is real regardless of what people think, then stuff is true regardless of what people think. It is almost as if people are suggesting that it is impossible to be wrong in anything! In which case, why do we even have words like "false" and "true" when "belief" sums it up perfectly! If there is only one universal truth, and there are two conflicting ideas of the truth, then at least one person is false.

I don't know if other stuff besides me exists, I think it does, and if it does then there is a universal truth, thus one can either be true in a statement, or false, and two conflicting ones can't both be true if their implications are that they exclude each other. It's like putting a snake and a mongoose togethar and expecting them to play nicely.


Anything that makes sense, and is logically consistent is (barely) possible. But that does not mean that there there is any reason to think it is true. No one is suggesting that it is impossible to be wrong about anything. In fact, since "to err is human" it is always possible for human beings to be wrong about what they believe. But that is, again, no reason to think taht what they believe is wrong, either. "It is possible that p is true" is not a reason to believe that p is true; and it is possible that p is false, is not a reason to believe that p is false. It general, "It is possible", is not a reason.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/08/2020 at 09:38:49