I appreciate your contribution, but I don't think you see my point. Some aspects of reality are no longer being debated. Others are. One thinks of cutting edge theories in physics and biology. One also thinks of discussions like these. Our conceptual interpretation of reality is for me no less real than our mental-model of matter in space. For many there is a God. For others there is not. To favor one's own view and call it Reality is hardly uncommon but also perhaps superstitious. This debate very much includes, from my point of view, our conceptions of reality.

Have our telescopes penetrated the outer reaches of the Universe (an invented concept)? Are our telescopes perfect instruments? Is the mammalian human brain a perfect instrument? Consider the limitations, I say, of that by which we obtain knowledge.

I also suggest some research into the deflationary theories of truth. I 'm curious about your reaction to such.

Thanks,
recon

Most monist proposition theories of truth bearers deny truth value changes.

If I utter the sentence "Queen Elizabeth II is alive", then it expresses a true proposition. If someone expresses it in 100 years, then it will presumably express a false proposition. It will express a different proposition in any case, even if it should be true.

Most monist proposition theories of truth bearers deny truth value changes.

If I utter the sentence "Queen Elizabeth II is alive", then it expresses a true proposition. If someone expresses it in 100 years, then it will presumably express a false proposition. It will express a different proposition in any case, even if it should be true.

Some people might call a 'mental model of matter in space' a 'conceptual interpretation of reality', then on top of our mental model of matter in space we have matter in space, independent of any mental model or conceptual interpretation, and this is the thing that truth deals with. However, I'm guessing at the meaning of 'conceptual interpretation of reality'; personally, I think it's too vague and ambiguous a phrase to be used in meaningful discourse, and I'm more inclined to say I have absolutely no idea what you mean (which of course assumes it is a meaningful phrase).

Whether or not our telescopes can see into the dark depths of space, concerns the justification of our beliefs about the dark depths of space. Truth is entirely independent of this.

Not if it expresses the proposition that Queen Elizabeth II is alive in 2009 does it express a false proposition. If it expressed the proposition that QE is alive in 2109, then of course, it would express a false proposition. Queen Elizabeth is alive (unless it is understood as "alive this (whatever particular year is) does not express any proposition. It is an incomplete sentence.

I define knowledge as justified belief... If knowledge is true justified belief it must accurately correspond with reality, but reality is still being decided upon.

What can the word "true" mean in the absence of absolute (perfect) knowledge?

So, to you, there's no such thing as truth or falsity?

This is a gross misrepresentation of my views. I'm talking about the limits of the correspondence theory of truth. In regards to the word "true" I urge you to look up deflationary theories of truth.

I'm perfectly willing to debate this with you, but I would like to feel that you understand what it is I'm saying.

What can the word "true" mean in the absence of absolute (perfect) knowledge?

I appreciate your contribution, but I don't think you see my point. Some aspects of reality are no longer being debated. Others are. One thinks of cutting edge theories in physics and biology. One also thinks of discussions like these. Our conceptual interpretation of reality is for me no less real than our mental-model of matter in space. For many there is a God. For others there is not. To favor one's own view and call it Reality is hardly uncommon but also perhaps superstitious. This debate very much includes, from my point of view, our conceptions of reality.

Have our telescopes penetrated the outer reaches of the Universe (an invented concept)? Are our telescopes perfect instruments? Is the mammalian human brain a perfect instrument? Consider the limitations, I say, of that by which we obtain knowledge.

Thanks,
recon

My mistake. I should have written:

If something says the sentence in 2100, then it will express a false proposition.

And this concept of something behind our concepts is itself just a concept. And "conceptual interpretation of reality" is exactly what you and I are doing right now. :sarcastic:

---------- Post added 12-12-2009 at 06:28 PM ----------



Is it indeed? I suppose one can have faith in that sort of thing. Sort of like God, this mind-independent reality that no one has ever experienced. We always experience it processed, by our sense and our instruments and our prejudices/culture. Is it not a bit superstitious, this idea of truth-in-itself?

Yes. Then the context will "complete" the sentence.

---------- Post added 12-13-2009 at 03:53 AM ----------



I don't know why you keep insisting that we don't experience a mind-independent reality when we clearly do all the time (unless we are involved in a sensory-deprivation experiment). Whenever I cut myself shaving, I experience a mind-independent reality. The experience is not, of course, mind-independent. But what I experience, the razor which cuts into my flesh, is mind-independent. And I don't experience my experience. I experience the razor.

But your experience of it is not mind-independent. The pain, the sight of the blood, the concepts of razor and cutting. All this is in your consciousness. A mind-independent reality is inferred from the experience of reality. If you mean we interact with a mind-independent reality, I can agree with that. But for me "experience" is associated with consciousness.

It's all a matter of terms. I doubt we really disagree on this much. I still think our real disagreement hinges on the correspondence theory of truth and what I think are its limitations.

I also think you neglected to see how much my emphasis of subjectivity was based on philosophical and religious positions. I look around and see humans pride themselves on many different virtues. They are all right in their own minds. Some truths have nothing to correspond to. Fallible humans tend to interpret today in the light of yesterday, if you catch my drift.

But your experience of it is not mind-independent. The pain, the sight of the blood, the concepts of razor and cutting. All this is in your consciousness. A mind-independent reality is inferred from the experience of reality. If you mean we interact with a mind-independent reality, I can agree with that. But for me "experience" is associated with consciousness.

Kennethamy - Do you agree with Reconstructo's comments in the above quote?

The crucial question seems to be: Is what we experience mind-independent? And that, I think, is a matter of terms. "What we experience" is an ambiguous phrase; it could refer either to the experience itself or (in the sense you are using it) the external reality. Precision of terms is very important here.

On the question of the correspondence theory of truth, my view is that there is a partial correspondence between experience and mind-independent reality. Patterns of real events are normally the simplest explanation for patterns of experience. Just as if you see a series of sights through a window, the simplest explanation is that they correspond to real events on the other side, rather than mere changes of light conditions, flaws in the glass, etc. What you see may, of course, not give a direct picture of reality (e.g. the glass may be dirty, or slightly convex), but it is still the events beyond the window that are primarily responsible for the changing patterns we see.

It's a slippery zone. Considering your implied distaste for phenomenology, I wonder if you have the patience to make a fair judgment on the issue. As I've said before, the "thing-in-itself" is itself a concept, making it paradoxical. I've also said that the problem of being, which is to some degree just a problem of language, is also difficult. Sure, we experience reality. Hegel might say we experience the appearance of reality. This is to say that Yes, reality appears: reality is at the party with us. His first book was originally going to be titled The Science of the Appearance of Reality. He examines our conceptual development, which is motivated in the first place by desire. At some point consciousness creates a concept of itself, the empirical ego. One could say that being is prior both to idealism and realism. But if the subject turns you off, would you not be motivated to try and write off its complexities? Because it isn't that practical or clear. It's murky territory. And these words are only counters, not coin. I'd be lying to you if I said I believed myself confused. But I do have some humility before this difficult region of philosophy.