Is Truth Invented or Discovered?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

fast
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 12:37 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;129052 wrote:
What do you think that sentence means?
Just what I thought you meant by it. I think you meant "might" but said, "are," and I think you think "are" is okay since you said, "for all we know," and I think that because I think that you think "for all we know" implies just what you would mean had you said "might."
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 12:48 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;129052 wrote:
Right. Your "might" and "may" distinction. I don't think in everyday language people usually notice such a thing, but I'll use "might" to mean logical possibility, and "may" to mean plausibility, to humor you.

P1 and P2 I would use interchangably in everyday language. "For all we know" is an expression. Why do you think P1 is false? What do you think that sentence means?


From the fact that two terms or phrases are used interchangeably, it does not follow that they are interchangeable. It depends, in part who used them interchangeably. It is true that "uninterested" and "disinterested" are used interchangeably by lots of people (including those who should know better) but that doesn't mean that they are interchangeable. "For all we know, P" implies, we do not know that P is false.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 12:51 pm
@fast,
fast;129054 wrote:
But the issue isn't between P2 and P3. The issue is between P1 and P2. It's simply not the case that based on what we know that we ARE all ... .

My point could have been made without bringing in the "is"/"might"/"may" distinction and simply left it at "is"/"might".

As to the expression, I think if you're gonna use it that it's better used with "might" instead of "are."


I don't understand the issue. I'll reread your posts and get back to you.

Quote:
And for all we know we are being mind-controlled by rabid penguins hiding on Mars.


Translates to: It is a logical possibility that we are being mind-controlled by rabid penguins hiding on Mars. Well, that is how I meant it. It was a throwing out of a wild possibility.

kennethamy wrote:
It isn't even true that for all we know we are are being mind-controlled by rabid penguins hiding on Mars. As a matter of fact, we know we are not.


It is a logical possibility that we are being mind-controlled by rabid penguins hiding on Mars.

Quote:

But, from the point of view of scientific realism, we do know that the actual objects in the world are radically different from the way we see them. For confirmation see "Eddington's Two Tables"


I read what you provided. How I see things is how things are. Just because I could see the table differently with instrumentation, does not mean the table is radically different. It is the same table, it is the same set of atoms, they are just being observed in a different manner. It's our perception that's changing, not the things.

Quote:

From the fact that two terms or phrases are used interchangeably, it does not follow that they are interchangeable. It depends, in part who used them interchangeably. It is true that "uninterested" and "disinterested" are used interchangeably by lots of people (including those who should know better) but that doesn't mean that they are interchangeable. "For all we know, P" implies, we do not know that P is false.


Sorry for not making myself clear. Perhaps you understand me now. If you do not, I will speak again.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:02 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;129059 wrote:
I don't understand the issue. I'll reread your posts and get back to you.



Translates to: It is a logical possibility that we are being mind-controlled by rabid penguins hiding on Mars. Well, that is how I meant it. It was a throwing out of a wild possibility.



It is a logical possibility that we are being mind-controlled by rabid penguins hiding on Mars.



I read what you provided. How I see things is how things are. Just because I could see the table differently with instrumentation, does not mean the table is radically different. It is the same table, it is the same set of atoms, they are just being observed in a different manner. It's our perception that's changing, not the things.



Sorry for not making myself clear. Perhaps you understand me now. If you do not, I will speak again.


From the fact that p is logically possible, it does not follow that we do not know that p is not true, as your example illustrates.

We know that a mass of electrons is not solid (as Eddington argues). But we know that the table is solid. Therefore, the mass of electrons is not the table.

But, in any case, I thought that you were arguing WYSIWYG. (What you see is what you get).
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 01:10 pm
@Reconstructo,
kennethamy wrote:

From the fact that p is logically possible, it does not follow that we do not know that p is not true, as your example illustrates.


For instance, it is logically possible that the chemical composition of water is H2H, but we know that the chemical composition is H2O, therefore we know that the chemical composition of water is not H2H.

Quote:

We know that a mass of electrons is not solid (as Eddington argues)


He is arguing that what the table consists of, isn't the table? Well, then, what does he think the table consists of? Something mysterious? Clearly there's more to the puzzle he's missing. Perhaps he should research forces.

Quote:
But, in any case, I thought that you were arguing WYSIWYG. (What you see is what you get).


I don't know what that is, but I hope I was not arguing it. It sounds like some sort of children's game. Though I do like playing Street Fighter 4, so maybe I do enjoy children's games.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 03:04 pm
@ACB,
ACB;128965 wrote:
I think one argument in favour of the existence of mind-independent objects is as follows. We can recognise disorder and incoherence when we see or hear it. Our brain does not conceptualise everything as consisting of coherent objects. So it seems reasonable to assume that when it does conceptualise a coherent object, this is because some kind of corresponding discrete thing-in-itself is present. Such a thing-in-itself may of course be very different from our concept of it, but some kind of one-to-one correspondence seems a reasonable assumption.


There are as many numbers between zero and one as there are numbers. The concept of discreteness itself is mind-dependent.

---------- Post added 02-16-2010 at 04:05 PM ----------

Zetherin;129022 wrote:
But are you sure Kant was saying that there are not seperate noumena from which we perceive seperate phenomenas? I think all he said was that the things-in-themselves are unknown, not that they are not individuated.


I think you're right on this. We can't know whether or not it/he/?/they are/is/am singular or plural or whether they would be something humanly inconceivable if experienced by another species. Kant reminds me of Wittgenstein's "Form of Life."

This just reminded me of Freud's "id" which just mean "it." The it. The thing-in-itself is an it? And this it is inferred in the first place.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 03:07 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo wrote:
I think you're right on this.

And this is what you were hinting at earlier when I said I didn't quite understand you, right? Are your beliefs similar to Kant's in regards to this matter?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 03:14 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;129123 wrote:
And this is what you were hinting at earlier when I said I didn't quite understand you, right? Are your beliefs similar to Kant's in regards to this matter?


Yes. There may be some details where we differ, because I am influenced by Hegel as well, but generally I find Kant persuasive on this subject. His ethics not so much. I also love Schopenhauer who is half-Kant half-Nietzsche (to brutally oversimplify).

For me, the Kantian revolution was a sort of Copernican revolution, as he himself claimed. For the mind to take its own limits in to account. For the mind to attempt to mentally model its self as a mental-modeler. This is exciting stuff.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 04:48 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129125 wrote:
Yes. There may be some details where we differ, because I am influenced by Hegel as well, but generally I find Kant persuasive on this subject. His ethics not so much. I also love Schopenhauer who is half-Kant half-Nietzsche (to brutally oversimplify).

For me, the Kantian revolution was a sort of Copernican revolution, as he himself claimed. For the mind to take its own limits in to account. For the mind to attempt to mentally model its self as a mental-modeler. This is exciting stuff.


Have you ever considered thinking it through without bothering about how this or that philosopher might think about the matter?
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 05:12 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129125 wrote:
Yes. There may be some details where we differ, because I am influenced by Hegel as well, but generally I find Kant persuasive on this subject. His ethics not so much. I also love Schopenhauer who is half-Kant half-Nietzsche (to brutally oversimplify).

For me, the Kantian revolution was a sort of Copernican revolution, as he himself claimed. For the mind to take its own limits in to account. For the mind to attempt to mentally model its self as a mental-modeler. This is exciting stuff.

All abstractions and all forms are mental models... The mind on mind is just an abstraction of an abstraction, and an infinite one at that...
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Tue 16 Feb, 2010 08:49 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;127266 wrote:
But, what does that mean? That you realize that something is true? Can you give an example of "truth realized by someone"?


"He realized that all along his obsession with trains went back to that episode, in Liepzig, in 1928, when his mother, whom he didn't even remember now, had left him for the last time. Of course it was an agonizing moment, when it finally came to consciousness. But he never felt the urge to go and look at the trains again, and was much more at peace, if not actually happy".

"She realized that most of those around her, even though they went through the motions of being team-players and good corporate citizens, were really only out for themselves, and would do anything or say anything to get the coveted Phase III management role that, rumour had it, was on offer."

"They realised that all these years they had been led astray, and that the man they had looked upon as Guru, was really just a power-hungry egomaniac whose main motivation was to seduce young girls. Needless to say, this realization was profoundly shocking to many of them".

Examples could be multiplied.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 01:54 PM ----------

"As he lay dying, his supplies finally exhausted, the malaria and the tropical parasites having finally drained the very last of his energy from his dying body, he looked once more at the treasure map, and in that last moment of consciousness, alone in the jungle, realised that all along he had overlooked a simple fact, that every school child would know, and which would have made sense of the maze of clues that had led him on this desperate quest for the fabulous treasure, which would now remain undisturbed for another generations.

"Of course', he said. "It is so obvious now. The final clue. The Capital of Ecuador is Quito...."

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 02:11 PM ----------

I apologise for being facetious, but I just couldn't resist it.

The deeper point, however, is that these kinds of truths - home truths about yourself, or some kinds of truths that are very hard to unearth - illustrate the idea of truth being something 'realized'. You realize that something you had always thought was the case, is actually quite different to how you had imagined it.

I think this illustrates the point.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 02:01:44