Truth is a White Lie

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;162514 wrote:

Let me ask you this: why does 1 + 1 = 2?

Because we defined it to. My brother is into advanced math and he tells me one of his hobbies is to make up new axioms and see what sort of math is implied by them. For example, he pretends that there is no such thing as even numbers, and then tries to regenerate all the rules of math. Something is only proven in a logical sense as long as one remembers the unproven axioms that defined the logical system. No logical system can prove its own axioms.

Reconstructo;162514 wrote:

Consensus is a huge factor in regards to truth...The point is the relationship between truth and consensus.

Consensus is a huge factor in regards to one definition of the truth. Namely, the stuff that everyone agrees on. But, another definition, the stuff that is what it is whether or not anyone agrees on it or even knows about it, wouldn't involve consensus at all.

Reconstructo;162514 wrote:

If Jimmy Bob really sees an alien spacecraft, but cannot "prove" it, he's just a "crazy" right?

It's important to remember the axioms you're working within.

He could have seen a real alien spacecraft. Only a fool would say that was 100% impossible. All we can say by way of supporting the conclusion he's crazy is that he does a lot of crazy things, and one of them is claim he saw an alien spacecraft. People like to jump to conclusions, especially when they don't have much information.

Reconstructo;162514 wrote:

And what is proof if not persuasion? In my opinion, careful thought on this issue is illuminating.

I agree with the sentiment. Proof is something that we invented, not something we discovered.

Reconstructo;162514 wrote:

Assuming, for the sake of thought-play, that "truth" is a white lie, we also have a dissolution of the dichotomy true/false. So the word "lie" has changed with the word truth.

I don't get what that means.

Reconstructo;162514 wrote:

It's a catchy eye-poking incitement to think.

Whatever works. Has your own understanding of the statement evolved over time?

@Blueback,

Blueback;162522 wrote:

No logical system can prove its own axioms.

I agree. Hence "white lie." After all, a white lie is a good lie, a justified "lie."

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 05:30 PM ----------

Blueback;162522 wrote:

But, another definition, the stuff that is what it is whether or not anyone agrees on it or even knows about it, wouldn't involve consensus at all.

But does this stuff exists except as an abstraction in the human mind? This reminds me of Kant's noumena, which is a great and useful concept but has huge logical difficulties. I think Hegel was an improvement on these difficulties. The real is rational. We say there is a world beyond our opinions, and yet this itself is one more opinion.

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 05:32 PM ----------

Blueback;162522 wrote:

It's important to remember the axioms you're working within.

I agree. I also think that we operate on all sorts of half-conscious axioms. Prejudices. And some of them are pragmatically justified. For instance, causality is not logically justified. But it is psychologically justified. Why should the future resemble the past? Because it always has? Smile

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 05:35 PM ----------

Blueback;162522 wrote:

He could have seen a real alien spacecraft. Only a fool would say that was 100% impossible. All we can say by way of supporting the conclusion he's crazy is that he does a lot of crazy things, and one of them is claim he saw an alien spacecraft. People like to jump to conclusions, especially when they don't have much information.

I agree. But perhaps you will agree that humans have certain attitude about ghosts and UFO's that aren't exactly logical. I personally don't want to believe in ghosts. I confess my desire for a more explainable predictable reality. I sympathize with finitism. I don't think we can really compute (mentally) infinity, although we do have useful if vague concept of such.

And yes, we do jump to conclusions. Sometimes it turns out to be a scientific breakthrough. Sometimes one has a lucky hunch. But mostly one gets a stubbed toe. Smile

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 05:36 PM ----------

Blueback;162522 wrote:

I don't get what that means.

If we negate the concept of absolute truth, and say that truth is a useful lie, then the concept of "lie" is changed. Just as if we said there was no more black and white but only shades of gray. It's a move from the digital to the analog.

---------- Post added 05-10-2010 at 05:40 PM ----------

Blueback;162522 wrote:

Whatever works. Has your own understanding of the statement evolved over time?

Well, I feel that we have truth enough to use the word in its normal sense. It's not that I no longer see how consensual truth is, but just that I'm much more interested in things like computer science and mathematics lately. And this is because an algorithm is a precise machine made almost of pure thought. I think that thinking is largely metaphorical, and that I fairly thoroughly investigated the issue and expressed my opinions on the matter. Basically I moved on to an new area of investigation. If metaphor is analog (analogy), then mathematics is largely (but not completely) discrete. At least the rational numbers are. Actually mathematics is heaving with the tension between the discrete and the continuous.

I love transcendental philosophy. I'm most interested in thinking about thinking, the essence of essence, etc. I want the root. I want to ur-science. I'll stop there. Smile

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;162514 wrote:

If Jimmy Bob really sees an alien spacecraft, but cannot "prove" it, he's just a "crazy" right?

Of course not. Why would anyone think so? Of course, if JB claims to see a spacecraft and he is unable to support it with any evidence, then there would be no good reason to think he had seen a spacecraft. And, of course, given what we all know at present, it is highly improbable that JB saw a spacecraft. And, of course, if all the evidence we have is that there are no spacecrafts, and accepting Hume's dictum that a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence, someone who believes that he saw a spacecraft would not be wise.

Why do you place the word prove between quotes? Any particular reason?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo wrote:

If we negate the concept of absolute truth, and say that truth is a useful lie, then the concept of "lie" is changed. Just as if we said there was no more black and white but only shades of gray. It's a move from the digital to the analog.

Hey, Reconstructo, long time no talk. Hope you're well.

What's the difference between absolute truth, and truth?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;162563 wrote:

Hey, Reconstructo, long time no talk. Hope you're well.

What's the difference between absolute truth, and truth?

Hey, that's a good question. I keep asking it, but get no answer. A little like Pontius Pilate (according to Bacon). Only Bacon reports Pilate as asking only, "What is truth?" and tells us that Pilate "would not stay for answer".

King James Bible
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

I suppose that Pilate started small, and was working up. Imagine Pilate starting out asking "What is absolute truth?"

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;162563 wrote:

Hey, Reconstructo, long time no talk. Hope you're well.

What's the difference between absolute truth, and truth?

Well, this goes back to our old conversation of word use. I think that we generally view truth on a sort of spectrum. Absolute truth would almost have to be tautological. Or let's say one has just left a friend's house, and his couch is blue. We might bet 200 dollars on this fact. But what if we hadn't seen the couch for 2 years, and we remember it as blue, but our friend assures us it was green?

Another example. If we are cleaning a gun that we "know" is unloaded, we might still make "sure."

Yet another example. let's say that we are suddenly accused of theft, and we know that we are completely innocent. We remember nothing. But video footage is shown of us creeping out at night to steal something. Or perhaps we are confronted by 3 eye-witnesses. When do we start to doubt what we "know"? Most truth is not absolute, in my view.

I find it philosophically fascinating if not practically useful to consider that the "law" of causality is not logically justified. Nor is the concept of the singular self, unless we equate the body with the "self." And yet the concepts of causality and selfhood seem necessary for normal social adjustment.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;162590 wrote:

Absolute truth would almost have to be tautological. Or let's say one has just left a friend's house, and his couch is blue. We might bet 200 dollars on this fact. But what if we hadn't seen the couch for 2 years, and we remember it as blue, but our friend assures us it was green?

You are not talking of truth, either ordinary or absolute, at all. What you are talking about is knowledge of the truth. But truth does not depend on anyone knowing the truth. There have been truths no one has every known, and there are doubtless truths that no one will ever know. Of course we may be uncertain about the truth, as in your examples. But what has that to do with the truth?

You appear to mean by "absolute truth" just certainty of the truth. But, as I have just pointed out, it does not matter to whether a proposition is true whether or not someone is certain that it is true. So, that I am not sure what the color of the couch is, is irrelevant to what the color of the couch is. You confuse truth with knowledge or certainty of the truth.

@Reconstructo,

How much is logically justified, in the strict sense? Of course this depends on one's definition of logic. Ah, but this is why logic was formalized to begin, to answer such a question precisely. But the more formal and abstract one makes this formal system, the less applicable it is to human life. Before long one is uttering profundities like P = P.

How dazzling it all is, the little upside-down A's and E's. If only the question of value could be reduced to bits, but such is not the case. And what is fuzzy logic but a looser quantification? I say quantification because truth and falsity are easily represented by 1 and 0, and this is just a "bit." A bit is about as close to an information atom as I can currently conceive. But the bit alone cannot even touch the hem of the garment that justice wears, or that beauty wears. The concept of truth is complicated, at least as soon as one wonders away from the manipulation of symbols within a system of axioms. Real life is foggy. We are forced to act on incomplete information.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;162615 wrote:

How much is logically justified, in the strict sense?

Many propositions. For instance, that Socrates is mortal. That proposition is logically justified in the strict sense (or, if you like, the strict sense, or even the "strict" sense) as follows:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man

Therefore, 3. Socrates is mortal.

How's that for justification in any sense you like?

Shall I go on?

@kennethamy,

Reconstructo;162615 wrote:

Before long one is uttering profundities like P = P.

A=A is the most important concept ever. It's the one that makes all the others possible. Just because it's easy to summarize doesn't mean it isn't profound.

Reconstructo;162615 wrote:

If only the question of value could be reduced to bits, but such is not the case.

Well, who cares? What would be gained by codifying values as 1's and 0's? Who says it's a failure?

Reconstructo;162615 wrote:

The concept of truth is complicated, at least as soon as one wonders away from the manipulation of symbols within a system of axioms. Real life is foggy. We are forced to act on incomplete information.

The concept can be complicated. But I don't think it has to be.

Zetherin;162563 wrote:

What's the difference between absolute truth, and truth?

Whatever you want to call it, at its greatest extent Truth is that which does not contradict itself. The "shades" of Truth are merely attempts to purge our mental model of contradictions, to varying levels of success.

@Blueback,

Blueback;162804 wrote:

Whatever you want to call it, at its greatest extent Truth is that which does not contradict itself. The "shades" of Truth are merely attempts to purge our mental model of contradictions, to varying levels of success.

See Zeth. Just ask a question , and you immediately receive a relevant and enlightening reply. It is so gratifying.

You asked about how he distinguishes between absolute truth and just plain old garden variety truth, and the answer is, it does not matter what you want to call it. It nearly makes you ask why he thought it mattered enough to make the distinction in the first place if he now does not think it matters at all.

@Reconstructo,

Than again,

I think too that sometimes people believe that a lie must be intentional, but often a lie can simply be misinformed.

We live in an age of overlapping paradigms. Each one encapsulates its own set of truths. Much like the laws recognized in the tiny world of the microscope and even smaller do not travel comfortably into the larger dimensions where man preformed his daily duties. Or do they?

Just maybe a lie and a truth are very similar to the particle and the wave that physics describes to us, and actually morph because of the eye of the beholder. Is a wave a particle or is a partical a wave or is it simply perspective that makes all of the difference. Maybe both the wave and the partical are essentially raw thought when unvanished by opinion.

Hell, we don’t even know if there is anything that is actually out there, or if every truth is simply dreaming itself.

S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;162895 wrote:

Hell, we don't even know if there is anything that is actually out there, or if every truth is simply dreaming itself.

S9

Hmm. "Speak for yourself, John" as Priscilla Lane shyly said to John Alden. I happen to know that there is a lot of stuff "out there" (wherever there, is).

The argument:

Every truth might be a dream, therefore we do not know that some truths are not dreams, is an invalid argument.

@Reconstructo,

K: Every truth might be a dream, therefore we do not know that some truths are not dreams, is an invalid argument.

S9: Perhaps, but I didn’t say that.

You did. : ^ )

I said, “Hell, we don’t even know if there is anything that is actually out there, or if every truth is simply dreaming itself.”

That statement above is not really an assertion about what is known. It is more a question about what can be known.

Questions do not have to prove themselves. In the land of questioning, only the sky is the limit and therefore they can free us to travel beyond what can merely be proven in this moment to what can be discovered.

This is known as receptivity. Every creative mind uses this avenue towards progress and illumination.

S9

@Subjectivity9,

Subjectivity9;162909 wrote:

K: Every truth might be a dream, therefore we do not know that some truths are not dreams, is an invalid argument.

S9: Perhaps, but I didn't say that.

You did. : ^ )

I said, "Hell, we don't even know if there is anything that is actually out there, or if every truth is simply dreaming itself."

That statement above is not really an assertion about what is known. It is more a question about what can be known.

Questions do not have to prove themselves. In the land of questioning, only the sky is the limit and therefore they can free us to travel beyond what can merely be proven in this moment to what can be discovered.

This is known as receptivity. Every creative mind uses this avenue towards progress and illumination.

S9

Wie du willst. ......

@kennethamy,

Subjectivity9;162895 wrote:

I think too that sometimes people believe that a lie must be intentional, but often a lie can simply be misinformed.

I don't think it counts as a lie if the person who tells it believes it's true. That would just be a mistake.

Subjectivity9;162895 wrote:

We live in an age of overlapping paradigms. Each one encapsulates its own set of truths.

Just because something is called a truth doesn't mean it is a truth. If the person who calls it a truth is aware of its contradictions, it's a lie. If the person who calls it a truth isn't aware of its contradictions, it's a mistake. If it doesn't have any contradictions it's a truth. So, in the sense that various areas of focus would consider some truths more relevant than others, I guess I can agree with that model. But if your model includes the idea that truths in one paradigm contradict truths in another, I don't think that would be truths then.

Subjectivity9;162895 wrote:

Much like the laws recognized in the tiny world of the microscope and even smaller do not travel comfortably into the larger dimensions where man preformed his daily duties. Or do they?

Of course they do. But they're still tiny. There's nothing complicated or confusing about the idea that certain effects are more important at certain scales. A stray ripple could capsize a dead leaf but it wouldn't even be noticed on a tsunami.

Subjectivity9;162895 wrote:

Just maybe a lie and a truth are very similar to the particle and the wave that physics describes to us, and actually morph because of the eye of the beholder. Is a wave a particle or is a partical a wave or is it simply perspective that makes all of the difference. Maybe both the wave and the partical are essentially raw thought when unvanished by opinion.

As I understand it the difference between a particle and a wave is that the former is a medium, so it can travel through empty space, and the latter depends on the presence of a medium to travel.

So, if they were "raw thought," that would imply that there are little thought particles flying around. Either that, or the distinction between thought and matter/energy is artifical. I dunno. Getting metaphorical, I suppose I could see a connection between the idea that truth is a particle, since it has to exist first, and lies are waves, since they are only created when the particles jiggle around. Theoretically it's possible for particles to exist without waves. If something reaced 0 kelvin the particles would still be there, but without any motion the waves couldn't be there. So, it makes sense that truth could exist without lies. . .if things reached 0 kelvin.

Subjectivity9;162895 wrote:

Hell, we don't even know if there is anything that is actually out there, or if every truth is simply dreaming itself.

How could a truth dream?

Subjectivity9;162909 wrote:

Questions do not have to prove themselves. In the land of questioning, only the sky is the limit and therefore they can free us to travel beyond what can merely be proven in this moment to what can be discovered.

This is known as receptivity. Every creative mind uses this avenue towards progress and illumination.

Sure. But sometimes a randomly generated question really isn't enlightening, it's just gibberish. Why doesn't ice cream have any bones?

@Reconstructo,

Very often people take the world on a very surface level, what I have called fundamentalist materialism, and they use their material ideas of proof in order to cage in ALL unique possibilities.

This certainly is detrimental to those who would go out ahead of us, open frontiers, and find new ways of looking at things.

Not only that but, these stilting methods can often doom us to mediocrity because they rely upon consensus, or majority rule.

So very often our best minds stand alone in their capacities, and foresight, and only over time can bring us along to where they have manage in their pioneer thinking and work to open up and make available whole new worlds of thought and freedom.

If we view ALL new thinking as a lie…well, we will simply stop growing as a species.

S9

@Subjectivity9,

If it takes someone with a great mind to get that far ahead, can you really blame the majority for not understanding them? Also, just as there are outlyers higher on the chart, there are outlyers lower on the chart. If they are equally unintelligible, how can the majority tell the difference?

If someone really is ahead of their time, well, time will show that. They will join a prestigious group if they are ridiculed during their life and only respected afterwards.

That being said, it seems like the truly great minds are the ones who can not only jump out ahead of everyon else, but also translate their discoveries into a language normal people can understand. Those guys are respected during their own lives, cuz they manage to make sense.

Something may very well be the truth, but if it sounds like a lie, the burden of proof is on the teller.

@Blueback,

Blueback;162804 wrote:

A=A is the most important concept ever. It's the one that makes all the others possible. Just because it's easy to summarize doesn't mean it isn't profound.

It is profound, I agree. But not for it's contingent properties. We don't have to use "A," for instance. Actually, it's cornerstone of my personal "metaphysics" that unity/identity is the center of the transcendental analytic, the core of thinking.

But what has the formalization added? I think it was Fichte who dropped A = A on us, and I love Absolute Idealism. I think identity is quite important for any transcendental/absolute philosophy but not so valuable in debate.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 02:37 PM ----------

Blueback;162804 wrote:

Well, who cares? What would be gained by codifying values as 1's and 0's? Who says it's a failure?

I don't think you see my point. How many bombs have been dropped in the "debate" concerning values? For instance, we seem to debating right now. Do you feel that a universal ethics has been achieved? Many do, of course, but the problem is convincing others of the universality of these same ethics.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 02:38 PM ----------

Blueback;162804 wrote:

The concept can be complicated. But I don't think it has to be.

Well, I personally am confident about my grasp on it, but a tour of this forum shows how difficult it is to establish a trans-personal or common conception of truth. It's not something that troubles me in the least, not anymore.

Of course I'm talking about the concept of truth and not the truth value of various propositions.

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 02:42 PM ----------

Subjectivity9;163008 wrote:

I agree. No matter the metaphors used, I expect that all thinking types and perhaps all humans in general have at least a spectrum of more true and less true or the equivalent which is more false or less false. The number 2 stays with us. The mind imposes distinctions.... Smile

@Reconstructo,

Somehow I think this logic is really wrong...

Truths are truths. Lies are lies.

Duh? I mean X is the set of things you know that are true. If you tell the truth, you will say something from X. If you tell a lie, you will intentionally say something non-X, even though to your knowledge it's false.

Philosophy Forum

Truth is a White Lie

Quick Links

My Account

able2know