What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

... In the beginning I stated that Truth is: All that actually exists. And felt that this definition defies human interpretation ...

Don't you have a contradiction here, as you've just defined it?
Yes, the way I phrased it, was full of possible linguistic misinterpretation, Unfortunately I wasn't an Engligh major, in case you hadn't noticed.

What I meant to say was: With a definition of Truth as: "All that actually exists," I feel it acknowledges the essence of truth such that it defies possible human misinterpretation, of any specific truth of actual existence, that we would be attempting to uncover, which is in fact why the concept was born in the first place. I really have a problem understanding why people don't understand this simple concept.

In other words from my perspective the: "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality, does nothing for me, no questions are raised, and I consider it an absurd notion, because human knowledge does not negate the actual occurrence (truth) of physical happenings.

But it does raise the issue of what a 'sound' is, which was its point I thought? As its fairly obvious that without the human ear present it would not make the 'sound' that it does when we are present, i.e. does the worm, squirrel or bird 'hear' the tree fall in the same sense?
Here you go, probably the most trusted dictionary in the world:
sound:
"1 vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person’s or animal’s ear." - Copyright © 2011 Oxford University Press -

Not to mention that I had a secret security clearance for and worked with the US DOD analyzing both electromagnetic and acoustic energy related to target detection. That's both light and sound, respectively, for the laymen out there.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK lance, you tell me in your own words:

What's bread?
What's an automobile?
What's a sphere?
What's color?
What's blue?
What's a mirage?
What's a temperature inversion layer?
What's the speed of light (not just number/units)?
What's a cranium?
What's blood?
What's a star?
What's a black hole?

I say that each and every one of those are EXACTLY the same sort of question, with exactly the same sort of answer. in your iteration they shall all have a group of word's that represent groups of more words, designed to differentiate varying properties so as to inform another.

Can the words take the place of the actual object, idea or phenomena? Of course not. One can't eat bread, or drive an automobile, etc. Each one of them you can sense, with one sense or another and sometimes via multiple senses. Which sense, the ease at which, the degree of, etc., varies. In addition some of the definitions will be short and sweet relative to that of others that may require a book to delineate. Some depend on humans, some don't. These variables do not negate their existence. Each one is just as real as the next.

I would say that the reason you view the color blue differently, is because it's new to you, and you never thought of it that way before, and because it's illusory. Everyone loves a magician! How did he do that, wow! Understanding color is also complex, not as complex as some of the other things on the list, IMHO. You see color differently because until recently you took it for granted. It's something you used in your coloring book as a child, how complicated could it be? Well as it turns out it's quite complicated.

Color is no different than anything else, you just believe it is, so much for human belief!

[lancek4]

Referencing SOB statement :"There is an absolute truth that can be conveyed if one understands it"

First. Is there something you absolutely understand?

If so, convey it to me.
Any thing that you want.
I will wager that you will do one of two things:
You will refuse. That is, you will say there is nothing which you absolutely know right now, but hopfully someday you will or we will.
Or
You will present me something. And in the process of coveying it to me, by my replies, you will either think I am being obstianate or stubborn , and or, you will think I am attempting to lead you into a position you think is untannable or argumentative and will stop and resort to reiterating your truth of the matter, aguing your position.

( But I submit that if you do the former that then you are doing the latter)

I challenge you to convey to me something which yoy understand until I understand it in its total absolute truth.

I saw what you and arising_UK <--(spelling sorry) did with the cube. Lance you can't un-know what a cube is so that someone can re teach it to you all over again. So your little experiment was a bust. Even if I could come up with something you didn't know, you'd be compelled to answer it in a way that behooves you and your point. You my friend, have a conflict of interest in this matter. We would have to conduct an experiment using the scientific method in order for your idea to work.

OK, I have something in mind, let me refine it to ensure it's what I want. I'm thinking of having you do a few things in real time. It's the only thing I can think of. It's a shame this place doesn't feature a chat room. Give me a little time to think about it. You're going to have to be honest with your findings though, what ever I come up with, no BS! Maybe we could use an Instant Message App. Any ideas?

Ok sounds interesting.
Btw, I have said a few times in my replies to you that I understand what you are saying. But my poinyt is not bust, but rather you have proven my point. Also, I have said that I do not exclude myself from my propositions.
What I know as a cube can only be conveyed to you to the extent that I have faith, at some point in the conveyance, that there is a common human understnding. Never in our conveyance do the words ar terms convey the actuality of the cube. My understanding of a cube is never fully conveyed, I only describe to a sufficient extent where I beilive you understand. If I could fully convey an object then there would be no need for discussion: I would say 'reality' and you would say 'ok' and that would be it. Thus we have the orientations; one which 'belives' that one day the object will be conveyed, one which does not.
One which denies the wholeness of its self, always looking for solution in the knowledge of the object, the other not.

I am not excluded from this situation.
I am not asserting that it is possible to unknow something.
I am also not asking for you to re-teach me what a cube is. I concede that it is what you describe, but what you describe is insufficient to describe what I know as a cube.
Is the cube you describe the same as the block in front of me with the letters 'abc' on it? How is is different? Tell me all the ways that a cube, as an absolute object is the same or different from this cube in front of me. I submit you would be describing these nonstop until you died and then you would still not even have touched upon the infinity of ways that the cube is and is not this cube in fronnt of me made of wood with letters colored in such a way.
Hence, to posit a cube as having some sort of absolution that we can convey, limits and denies the reality of the cube itself, and thereby allows for a knowledge by which we can absolutely posit an absolute.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Referencing SOB statement :"There is an absolute truth that can be conveyed if one understands it"

First. Is there something you absolutely understand?

If so, convey it to me.
Any thing that you want.
I will wager that you will do one of two things:
You will refuse. That is, you will say there is nothing which you absolutely know right now, but hopfully someday you will or we will.
Or
You will present me something. And in the process of coveying it to me, by my replies, you will either think I am being obstianate or stubborn , and or, you will think I am attempting to lead you into a position you think is untannable or argumentative and will stop and resort to reiterating your truth of the matter, aguing your position.

( But I submit that if you do the former that then you are doing the latter)

I challenge you to convey to me something which yoy understand until I understand it in its total absolute truth.

I saw what you and arising_UK <--(spelling sorry) did with the cube. Lance you can't un-know what a cube is so that someone can re teach it to you all over again. So your little experiment was a bust. Even if I could come up with something you didn't know, you'd be compelled to answer it in a way that behooves you and your point. You my friend, have a conflict of interest in this matter. We would have to conduct an experiment using the scientific method in order for your idea to work.

OK, I have something in mind, let me refine it to ensure it's what I want. I'm thinking of having you do a few things in real time. It's the only thing I can think of. It's a shame this place doesn't feature a chat room. Give me a little time to think about it. You're going to have to be honest with your findings though, what ever I come up with, no BS! Maybe we could use an Instant Message App. Any ideas?

Ok sounds interesting.
Btw, I have said a few times in my replies to you that I understand what you are saying. But my poinyt is not bust, but rather you have proven my point.
Watch this: I fully understand your points and find them lacking any real substance. You're caught up on language. Your points then has in fact proven my points. You see because of my position in our debate I realize that we both have a conflict of interest in terms of judging each others arguments and that as humans it's extremely difficult to remove our interests from our thinking as we formulate our synopsis of the others arguments.

Also, I have said that I do not exclude myself from my propositions.
What I know as a cube can only be conveyed to you to the extent that I have faith, at some point in the conveyance, that there is a common human understnding. Never in our conveyance do the words ar terms convey the actuality of the cube. My understanding of a cube is never fully conveyed, I only describe to a sufficient extent where I beilive you understand. If I could fully convey an object then there would be no need for discussion: I would say 'reality' and you would say 'ok' and that would be it. Thus we have the orientations; one which 'belives' that one day the object will be conveyed, one which does not.
One which denies the wholeness of its self, always looking for solution in the knowledge of the object, the other not.
Here the former is the one of humility, while the latter is the one or arrogance; The former is open minded, while the latter is close minded; The former knows that much is larger than him, while the latter believes that much is smaller than him; The former cares about getting it right, while the latter just wants to get it done; The former is a secret optimist despite all the human turmoil, while the latter is a secret pessimist due to all the human turmoil; The former believes in the absolution of the universe, while the latter believes in the absolution of the self, thus the former is giving and the latter is selfish; The former shall always listen as a student of life, while the latter no longer does believing he's a teacher of life. The former knows not and knows he knows not, while the latter knows not and knows not he knows not.

The latter only believes he's whole, while the former knows no human is whole.


I am not excluded from this situation.
I am not asserting that it is possible to unknow something.
I am also not asking for you to re-teach me what a cube is. I concede that it is what you describe, but what you describe is insufficient to describe what I know as a cube.
This last sentence is contradictory! And I doubt this is insufficient as it's the definition.

a symmetrical three-dimensional shape, either solid or hollow, contained by six equal squares. --Copyright © 2011Oxford University Press--

I would probably further add that it had 8 vertices, 12 equal edges, and 6 equal square faces.

Is the cube you describe the same as the block in front of me with the letters 'abc' on it? How is is different? Tell me all the ways that a cube, as an absolute object is the same or different from this cube in front of me. I submit you would be describing these nonstop until you died and then you would still not even have touched upon the infinity of ways that the cube is and is not this cube in fronnt of me made of wood with letters colored in such a way.
Hence, to posit a cube as having some sort of absolution that we can convey, limits and denies the reality of the cube itself, and thereby allows for a knowledge by which we can absolutely posit an absolute.
Give me a break Lance. The point you raise of the cube is ridiculous and you know it. You are well aware that a cube is a geometric shape and has absolutely nothing to do with any particular ornately decorated cube. I don't believe for a second that you've had absolutely no exposure to Geometry, with all those confounded theorems. If in fact you wanted to describe a child's building block then you would have the further describe the nature of it's ornateness. The notion you raise is from the bottom of the barrel. A cube is an absolute three dimensional geometric shape. The shape is EXACTLY the same in ALL situations or else it's not a cube, which is by definition. You're trying to nitpick and create an example with absolutely no foundation. Is this the norm from someone that actually believes they're whole? It's a whole lot of something alright, but it's not truth.

[Arising_uk]

To Arising_uk-------

Although in general behavior it is difficult to carry on the burden of third person all the time but, when you sit down and trying to think deeply, it is achievable. It is not a god like state. If one use to think deep and honestly and convert it into a habit then mind uses to come in this state almost by default. The approach of a judge is must for a philosopher. ...

I think this as the default state would be wrong as it would be imbalanced. If one were to have a default state then I think it would be the cycle of all three positions, first to second to third, swap third and first then act in first. I'm not sure a judge is the best metaphor for this, jury maybe.

I am not against questioning. All I want to say that it should be reasonable.

I agree. Although who is to be the judge of this?

If Bill has done as you said then I must say sorry to him but I used it just an example to explain my point.

Reasonable enough.

I see belief as a mother and experiences/witnessing as a father. If the semen of father is strong enough to make the mother pregnant and then, if the mother is strong to carry the child in her womb for long time enough so the child would mature before coming into existence, the child of faith is born. Even after taking birth, it needs to be cared properly by his parents otherwise it will die or became ill. It should he looked after until he becomes able to walk and talk.

Not sure where 'faith' comes in here but think I sort of understand your analogy, although I'd say you should look after the child until they become able to reason not just walk and talk.

I simply do not know that there is singularity of the ultimate or ultimate entities. But I feel that one of these must be true. The problem is we cannot know it by philosophy. It could be known only when experience it in person.

Hmm... what difference do you have between your feelings and your experience?

[lancek4]

That which is most true is that which accounts for the most facts in the simplest way.
The facts are that there are opinions.
Both our statements which seem opposite are actually decribing reality. Both. One is not more true.

So as to absolute truth, we cannot deny that I could just as well use your statements for my position against yours, as you have mine. The truth of the matter is not in the opinion, it is that there is opinion.

I understand the cube. Exactly how you define it. And in fact as I kept saying there is no absolute cude in your conveyance, you would continue giving me more and more definitions, ways that a cube is absolutly true until , as you have done, you will stop, assert that you have given sifficient data and the state your truth as if 'by now' I should understand your absolutly true conveyance. When I say ' no you have not done so sufficiently' then you appeal to my common humanity and figure I'm being stubborn or dense or obstinate.

This is the fact of the matter. I matters not what I am actually being except that you think it so, which is condidtioned by how knowledge is situated for you for what is true.

At these ends communication ceases because both of us have come to what constitutes our true faith and we will not wish to confront that faith. Indeed we are incapable of it

I am not being obstinate. You and I have reached a point where each of us keeps reiterating our absolute truths. Each time thinking we can convince the other or show them where we might be off. But what happens is whatever you say falls into the truth I know. And likeiwse you. So we keep reiterating our positions in different ways.

Thus my thesis is true (above: either or) you and I have together shown that it is true. It is the effect of existing as human.

But I imagine you will disclaim it again, and we will go around again, and again show that the thesis is true.

[lancek4]

And, if I may give a nod to Z13 (sanjay I believe): my last post would amount to what he calls the "third person" or "birdeye" view.

[lancek4]

It is quite possible something is being accomplished here because the 'bread and the 'auto' stuff -
Yes all have terms

Question:
Potentially the terms related toward defining such things are infinite.
To oneself considering them
But in discourse with another they find limitation.

(That is a question, posed as the propositions I came upon. Thnkx SOB )

[SpheresOfBalance]

That which is most true is that which accounts for the most facts in the simplest way.
Only as believed by the most simple of minds. Complex is not false just difficult for some to comprehend.
The facts are that there are opinions.
Agreed!
Both our statements which seem opposite are actually decribing reality. Both. One is not more true.
Not at all. The truth may be one more than the other, a mixture where the amounts of each are variable, or neither one. Only time is possible of bearing out the absolute truth.

So as to absolute truth, we cannot deny that I could just as well use your statements for my position against yours, as you have mine. The truth of the matter is not in the opinion, it is that there is opinion.
Here you're trying to create a reason for a stalemate which is in fact true but not for the reasons you outline. The true reasons for the stalemate is in the lack of proof.

I understand the cube. Exactly how you define it. And in fact as I kept saying there is no absolute cude in your conveyance,
I know that you wouldn't be ridiculous enough to propose that somehow someones conveyance of a cube would manifest a physical cube made of matter, which is the way you've worded it, so I'll correct it. you said:"...there is no absolute cude in your conveyance,..." But my conveyance is absolutely that of a cube and nothing else.

you would continue giving me more and more definitions, ways that a cube is absolutly true until , as you have done, you will stop, assert that you have given sifficient data and the state your truth as if 'by now' I should understand your absolutly true conveyance. When I say ' no you have not done so sufficiently' then you appeal to my common humanity and figure I'm being stubborn or dense or obstinate.
The fact that you absolutely know what a cube is, in the face of my telling you what it is, would absolutely be either stubborn/obstinate but never dense!

This is the fact of the matter. I matters not what I am actually being except that you think it so, which is condidtioned by how knowledge is situated for you for what is true.
The fact of the matter is that your cube idea has been weighed, measured, and found to be inconclusive in your proposed endeavour. My idea of a real time experiment is more in keeping with your proposal as far as a real test.

At these ends communication ceases because both of us have come to what constitutes our true faith and we will not wish to confront that faith. Indeed we are incapable of it
Not at all, we are both being obstinate, anyone is capable of anything, it all depends on their motivation. Our argument has wandered all over the place. We started talking about the absolute truth of the universe and are now talking about language, which is one of your hangups.

By the way thanks for finally breaking down and speaking in a way I'm more comfortable with, I would hate to think that you're so caught up in language that you would try and win a debate through overwhelming your opponent with his need of constant dictionary reference to ensure the integrity of his understanding. Overburdening you opponent can never be truly seen as a winning scenario unless one's all about war!

I do agree that I need to work on my vocabulary, and it's incrementally being built up as we speak.

I am not being obstinate. You and I have reached a point where each of us keeps reiterating our absolute truths. Each time thinking we can convince the other or show them where we might be off. But what happens is whatever you say falls into the truth I know. And likeiwse you. So we keep reiterating our positions in different ways.
Quit trying to steal a victory! They are not our absolute truths but in fact our absolute beliefs. Actually they're not even absolute as they are dependent upon our current state of bias, and shall fade as we grow. Of course, we are, but reiteration is all about finding common language so as to be effective in communication.

Thus my thesis is true (above: either or) you and I have together shown that it is true. It is the effect of existing as human.
Nothing has been shown as absolute truth, we have merely grown weary of the onslaught. It seems to be an uphill battle and rightfully so, I'm a 54 year old dog and you're a 30 something year old dog and you know what the say about old dogs. Old being continually relative, of course! Your thesis above is your current version of truth and shall be replaced with a knew version as you get older.

But I imagine you will disclaim it again, and we will go around again, and again show that the thesis is true.
So are you saying that you have to have the last word, or that despite your weariness you enjoy the dance?

Actually I thank you for your time, as it is the one thing that we all expend that in the end we want more of. It is the most precious gift. Surely not that I have to tell you, but consider this as you look to your wife and especially your child!

I have been alone here for almost 2 years as my wife is elsewhere maintaining our financial boat from succumbing to the current whirlpool of failed infrastructure that at birth we're forced into as if in slavery. I told her just the other day on the phone, that our little debate has sharpened my wits that were fading into obscurity. I thank you again for your time, good sir!

PEACE, my friend!

[lancek4]

Absolutely ! .

[lancek4]

Ah - even something complex may be the simplest accounting for all the facts. Whether any particular sindividual understnads it is irrelevant.

I shall put it another way:
Given a set of facts, the explanation which accounts for them in the most simplest manner must be correct. Exterraneous explanatory elements must then be irrelavant, since they would be accounted for in the simpler explanation.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ah - even something complex may be the simplest accounting for all the facts. Whether any particular sindividual understnads it is irrelevant.

I shall put it another way:
Given a set of facts, the explanation which accounts for them in the most simplest manner must be correct. Exterraneous explanatory elements must then be irrelavant, since they would be accounted for in the simpler explanation.

It sounds like you're speaking of both Ockham's razor and the need for increased vocabulary. Sorry about that, that's just me right now. I guess I hate leaving my comfort zone because I hate making mistakes. I've found that my points are clearer to understand. The more words I use the more people I include. I'm just lazy. What's the point, death is knocking at my door. I have a whole bunch of excuses. Do you want to hear more GOD, I slay me sometimes. At least now that I've gotten older I can laugh at myself. Who knows, maybe this being alone crap is kinda making me loopy.

[lancek4]

Ah - even something complex may be the simplest accounting for all the facts. Whether any particular sindividual understnads it is irrelevant.

I shall put it another way:
Given a set of facts, the explanation which accounts for them in the most simplest manner must be correct. Exterraneous explanatory elements must then be irrelavant, since they would be accounted for in the simpler explanation.

It sounds like you're speaking of both Ockham's razor and the need for increased vocabulary. Sorry about that, that's just me right now. I guess I hate leaving my comfort zone because I hate making mistakes. I've found that my points are clearer to understand. The more words I use the more people I include. I'm just lazy. What's the point, death is knocking at my door. I have a whole bunch of excuses. Do you want to hear more GOD, I slay me sometimes. At least now that I've gotten older I can laugh at myself. Who knows, maybe this being alone crap is kinda making me loopy.

Lol.
Hey - if you are really very close to death (and I have the utmost respect and compassion if you do).
If you would indulge me, and see I have no ulterior motive here except an earnest dialogue :
What comforts you, so close to death as you express?
Do you move toward that passage in confidence of a well lived life? Or relief? Or horror?

You do not have to answer if you feel this too much for this forum. I will totally understand.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Internal Server Error

[SpheresOfBalance]

Internal Server Error