What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

---------
Sidebar
---------
As to directly answering the threads allusions, (apparently Bill meant actually "seeing"; optically. Or maybe it's more correct to say that he answered it at the same time that he asked it ),i.e., that we can't see the truth, and that something precludes our seeing it. Simplistically, the answer is obviously, us!

I have to wonder: have you read Feuerbach?
No.

I believe its a combination of many things. All our physical and mental limitations which is also to say our youth as a species. While our physicalities present problems, we've created tools to compensate that are still undergoing advancement. I believe that this doesn't compare to the mental considerations.

Seriously, how can we possibly entertain universal understanding when we have an incomplete understanding of our own mental processes'. How can anything that doesn't know itself, know anything else? It would seem this is the issue at hand in our discusssion. For, I would say, I know myself absolutely.
I would say that you were mistaken, and that any human saying so would be likewise. Tell me of your consciousness. Tell me how your thoughts work. From where do your instincts come. What happened during your first year of life (90% of the psyche is created) in it's totality and what effects did it have on you psyche? Are you male? Were you circumcised? if yes to both questions then what effects if any can you remember that it had with relation to the encoding your perinatal brain with violence and to what extent it negatively affected infant-maternal bonding and trust. Note that I'm 'not' asking you to rationalize it now, which would be tainted with inaccuracy, but to revisit it's actual impact, if any, at the time. So I resubmit how can anyone truly know themselves? It's virtually impossible. Because our psyche's creation is at a time when we literally know nothing, well relatively speaking.

But what does that say about 'anything else'?
Clear perception requires bias elimination/reconciliation.

How many people are in therapy; how many should be in therapy? Until humans can harness their emotions, especially fear, becoming pure intellect, I do not believe that harnessing our fears equates to becoming pure intellect. Here is an example of a conclusion derived from an assumption of 'truth'.
I said emotion which would give way to nothing but intellect

we shall continue to be stupefied by something as infinite as the Universe; the origin of everything. Yet, I would agree with htis conclusion in as much as your previous conclusion (the assumption) is true. I am not stupefied by an infinite universe (our definition thereof?) since I know of an absolute truth, which is what we are testing.
You're not astounded by the universe? Well I am. Not a day goes by that I don't think of how utterly amazing this life/universe is; especially Earth.

"To concern oneself with the ability/inability of understanding something particular, alludes to it's knowledge being absolute!"

or if you want it further delineated:

"The greater the number of those concerned with the ability/inability of understanding something particular, increasingly alludes to it's knowledge being absolute!" You should look at Feuerbach, check out his reply to Stirner.
What I said here is actually somewhat in keeping with both the Constructivist and Consensus theories of truth criteria. I said alludes. I guess I could have added "possible" as well.

Obviously we should continue to try, as it's the only way we'll make any progress, well that along with time.

"In truth, we can only believe the understanding of the time, hoping it's the knowledge of the future, until such time, that there are no questions."

I just hope that we have time, as it would seem to me that we're currently oblivious to that which ensures it.

Your sidebar here is consistent. I understand what you are saying.

Feuerbach speaks of 'God' as being the potential that lay in the existance of the entire human manifestation. The economy of human interaction establishes that which is the Self, the known, against the entirety of the human manifestation, the unknown. His analysis is more involved, and I cannot bring into words his whole argument, but it is an interesting proposition.
His position (a rough summation) is that God does not exist as a supernatural agent, but that our morality projects from the totality of human interaction (the unknown) out upon itself an agent of morality in itself, a being, a God. But that actually God is that 'portion' of the human economy which we, as individuals, cannot recognize in our immediate experience. And that it is in the full recognition of the human experience, so far as to practice, responsibility and concern for others, as a whole that 'atheism' is salient, and paradoxically, God becomes actually effective.

I don't necessarily believe in a force, entity, creator, divine being, etc. But I believe that anything is possible. I would never be foolish enough to denounce that which is incapable of being proven one way or the other.


(I may have elaborated upon his idea somewhat, but I think Ive conveyed the jist.)

XXXXXXXXXX

But -
all such propositioning avoids the question that I feel is at the heart of our endeavor: How is it that I may come upon a truth of the universe? How is it that I may be separated enough from the universe that I might be able to 'know' of it in order to make statements of truth about it?

If you were a being that existed prior to the universes' birth and lived to present then you would know The absolute truth of it. But in fact you were born unknowing at the end of it's life of 13.73 billion Earth years. How could you possibly know it? We're just babies.

[Arising_uk]

If you were a being that existed prior to the universes' birth and lived to present then you would know The absolute truth of it. But in fact you were born unknowing at the end of it's life of 13.73 billion Earth years. How could you possibly know it? We're just babies.

I thought we pretty much know the "absolute truth" from a few milliseconds at the beginning to how long it'll be until all the stars we know run down. Interestingly enough we are at a time when only we will know that there are any other galaxies than ours. In the future the absolute truth will be that we are the only galaxy in the universe.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Assuming a universe, not of purposeful creation, whereby the hand of the creator guides all cause and effect and that instead the cause and effect was of random chance encounters, I propose the following:

The Universe is approximately 13.73 billion years old.
Simple cells came into existence on Earth 3.8 billion years ago.
Human evolution started 7 million years ago
Humans appeared 200,000 years ago.

I couldn’t find when consciousness and thought were supposedly born, but I believe it’s safe to say sometime in the last 7 million years.
(By the way, some philosophers and scientists think that consciousness is an illusion.)

So I put your question to you. If in fact for the first 13 billion years of the universes 13.7 billion year life it had no mind, no consciousness, or no thought such that it was incapable of decisive intent, aim and purpose, in actual existence (truth), then at that time, how could the universe express ‘anything other than its true self?'

And if the Creation side of you takes a peek from behind the curtain then I submit that the answer to both questions is “because that’s the way it was designed!

I dont know why this quote function doesnt work sometimes!)
because somehow the ending quotation mark after my name prior to the last square bracket was deleted

Thus I would propose that thought and consciousness, as effects of the human being, its organs, its brain, are equally ture and existant. That we humans are merely carrying out the continued functioning of this universe, that there is no 'false' in this sense, or that 'false' is in itself merely another form of the universe occurring as it does.
Or,
the universe was designed in a manner where humans have an ability to know the universe through an arena of effective ignorance and knowledge.

So I am not sure if you are being facecious here though, to make a point.
Not really, I was just incapable of understanding how one could go both ways.
Nevertheless, the same problem presents itself:

How is it that I may have come upon this knowledge, as if it is more true than any other assertion? It is rediculous to throw up our hands. I am compelled to seek.
So, is there some 'force' or 'agency' that exists outside of the universe as we have defined it as existing? A creator? This smacks firmly of belief. I cannot rest in such a platitude; at minimum I need ask what 'belief' is.

How is it that the universe as we have defined it , as 'the totality of all that exists", developed something of itself that is not itself?

so we are back to where we left off, eh?

What do you belief'?
Creator/ Big Bang/ Both/ Niether? Not sure
What is 'belief'? anything not verified as a fact
existance? knowledge?
where shall we resume?maybe a short destraction

Yes everything is connected to everything else and the more you attempt to unravel it, the more complicated it becomes.

The reason I said this bit earlier:

At this point prior to any concession, I have to make a distinction. I agree that the 'ability of being conscious' and the 'act of thinking' actually exit in truth, whatever their true essence. But only in so much as the following are true. With regard to consciousness, there is not necessarily any truth in specific discerning interpretations of any aspect of experience. And with regard to thought there is not necessarily any truth in the resulting ideas or arrangements of ideas. Because before they can bear truth they must be aligned with 'all' universal truth that came before, that from which they were born (the universe), otherwise they are contradictory unto themselves, and as such, bear no truth.

is because anything else lends itself to anarchy. The test of a new possible truths actuality must not violate the truth that has given way to it's inception or else it is self defeating.

No one could ever say in truth that John Doe should die, because truth gave way to John Doe's existence. To say that John Doe should die would indicate they knew everything about, and spoke for, the universe and that from it's perspective John Doe was a mistake of birth. No human can make that distinction. To any human that thinks they have found a reason to kill, to prove a point, I would say to stick a loaded and cocked 45 caliber semiautomatic in their mouth pointing straight up into their brain and pull the trigger, because that's the only life you have a right to end. To do anything less in terms of taking a life is the epitome of cowardice. I also believe that taking your own life is foolish and would never recommend it, in truth. There is always a viable solution to any human conflict of interest. In self defense however, where you believe your life is threatened, if you happen to kill in it's defense, the responsibility falls upon the offender (aggressor) and not the defender, especially if they do everything in their power to avoid the confrontation.

Humankind's history of needless killing is one of my pet peeves. Sure I understand it from a neanderthal's perspective, but modern man?????

Care to comment on human atrocities at this point? While it's not strictly on topic it's in dealing with truth. Maybe a distraction will clear our minds so that potential solutions to the main topic may more readily present themselves.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If you were a being that existed prior to the universes' birth and lived to present then you would know The absolute truth of it. But in fact you were born unknowing at the end of it's life of 13.73 billion Earth years. How could you possibly know it? We're just babies.

I thought we pretty much know the "absolute truth" from a few milliseconds at the beginning to how long it'll be until all the stars we know run down. I hear you but I view it as only a theory subject to possible revision. And I'm referring to the theory of everything and not a generalization but all the specifics as well, in their totality.

Interestingly enough we are at a time when only we will know that there are any other galaxies than ours. In the future the absolute truth will be that we are the only galaxy in the universe.

But I agree that what you have said is in keeping with some of the current theories. Actually I've heard that there's evidence that in a few million or is it billion years Andromeda and the Milky Way shall collide becoming one.

[lancek4]

What I see is that you 'jumped' back into your 'belief'. So we will call our investigation a comfortable truce.

Yes I would like to comment on the atrocities. In just a moment...

[SpheresOfBalance]

What I see is that you 'jumped' back into your 'belief'. So we will call our investigation a comfortable truce.

Yes I would like to comment on the atrocities. In just a moment...

So what specifically causes you to believe that I've 'jumped' back to 'belief.' I hope it's not about the Psyche formation because that's a fact! If you don't believe me take a psych class or two. If I was to forward or crass or otherwise rough with the delivery I apologize. I really meant no harm. I'm unfortunately a very passionate person that sometimes gets carried away. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Don't run from anything I've said, instead engage. Challenge my belief system. Actually all that we have mentioned so far is belief. Most of what we've said is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that's why scholars continue to call them THEORIES. Even Einsteins theory of relativity is still referred to as a theory, and rightfully so. I'm not saying that any of them are incorrect, I'm just saying that none of them are necessarily absolutely correct.

I've said this several times before. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New York of City University of New York, the co-founder of string field theory. He's well known and has appeared in many documentaries. I heard and watched him say on national television, PBS, that recently many of their theories pertaining to the cosmos have have been turned upside down such that many cosmologists are investigating Creationism. They're just theories, for gods sake! I take them serious of course, as theories. I believe that all men are created equal, with the same amount of potential, we all have the same hormones, the same equipment and step into our pants the same way. No one is special and has equal capability in finding truth.

The one thing about my truths is that equality amongst humans reigns supreme. Justice wields fairness. Money is not important, only love, compassion and understanding is.

Whether you agree with me or not, if you have a broadband connection at home, I highly suggest that you check out this documentary on HULU.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/173530/flight ... -Biography

[bobevenson]

Humankind's history of needless killing is one of my pet peeves. Sure I understand it from a neanderthal's perspective, but modern man?????

Please use the term "mankind" instead of the pretentious "humankind," and why should needless killing be one of your pet peeves? Mr. Charles Darwin would have said that one of your pet peeves is the only reason you are here to have any pet peeves at all.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Humankind's history of needless killing is one of my pet peeves. Sure I understand it from a neanderthal's perspective, but modern man?????

Please use the term "mankind" instead of the pretentious "humankind," and why should needless killing be one of your pet peeves? Mr. Charles Darwin would have said that one of your pet peeves is the only reason you are here to have any pet peeves at all.

Please don't pass off assumption as lending credence to your position as is appears hollow.

[bobevenson]

Evolution based on survival of the fittest is not an assumption, my friend.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Evolution based on survival of the fittest is not an assumption, my friend.

You're not very bright my friend, read again and see if your capable of finding a different meaning, but I doubt it!

[lancek4]

What I see is that you 'jumped' back into your 'belief'. So we will call our investigation a comfortable truce.

Yes I would like to comment on the atrocities. In just a moment...

So what specifically causes you to believe that I've 'jumped' back to 'belief.' I hope it's not about the Psyche formation because that's a fact! If you don't believe me take a psych class or two. If I was to forward or crass or otherwise rough with the delivery I apologize. I really meant no harm. I'm unfortunately a very passionate person that sometimes gets carried away. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

Don't run from anything I've said, instead engage. Challenge my belief system. Actually all that we have mentioned so far is belief. Most of what we've said is impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, that's why scholars continue to call them THEORIES. Even Einsteins theory of relativity is still referred to as a theory, and rightfully so. I'm not saying that any of them are incorrect, I'm just saying that none of them are necessarily absolutely correct.

I've said this several times before. Michio Kaku is a theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New York of City University of New York, the co-founder of string field theory. He's well known and has appeared in many documentaries. I heard and watched him say on national television, PBS, that recently many of their theories pertaining to the cosmos have have been turned upside down such that many cosmologists are investigating Creationism. They're just theories, for gods sake! I take them serious of course, as theories. I believe that all men are created equal, with the same amount of potential, we all have the same hormones, the same equipment and step into our pants the same way. No one is special and has equal capability in finding truth.

The one thing about my truths is that equality amongst humans reigns supreme. Justice wields fairness. Money is not important, only love, compassion and understanding is.

Whether you agree with me or not, if you have a broadband connection at home, I highly suggest that you check out this documentary on HULU.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/173530/flight ... -Biography

There is nothing to your point here that I can disagree with. We were discussing truth and how there may be an Absolute Truth. I figure that we stopped at 'belief' makes true, so if this is the absolute basis of truth, then truth is an infinitely regressing element and has no real basis. But this is contrary to experience. Some how there is a truth that I know that is not relative, so it can not be mere belief. So our investigation found 'belief' as significant to what may be absolute truth.

[lancek4]

My point as to 'atrocities' was that I was not suggesting that there are no human atrocities. And you commented that you do not condone any activity that would knowingly do harm - at least to that effect, you said.
I said I might have a small objection, since if someone were to maliciously rape my daughter or my wife, I would undoubtedly want to do them harm, and probably would.



Likewise, and more relativly speaking, good can come from what may be seen as evil.

[SpheresOfBalance]

My point as to 'atrocities' was that I was not suggesting that there are no human atrocities. And you commented that you do not condone any activity that would knowingly do harm - at least to that effect, you said.
I said I might have a small objection, since if someone were to maliciously rape my daughter or my wife, I would undoubtedly want to do them harm, and probably would.
I hear you, I feel the same way, I have a family as well. It's just that when you said that there 'was no false and that humans are the extension of the true existence in keeping with the universe' I thought you were subconsciously justifying a desire to do evil. I, as well as others, believe that many of us have psychological issues where we try and find a reason to hate someone so that we can fulfill a sick need to do harm, including killing. For instance, "Right for Lifer's" killing doctors, totally absurd. Don't get me wrong, I've always been against abortion but in the end I realized that you can't 'tell' someone what to do with their own body either. Such that now my title is "anti abortion/pro choice" advocate, and their order is purposeful. Those that killed those doctors are really just killers that found an outlet to unleash their need to kill.


Likewise, and more relativly speaking, good can come from what may be seen as evil.

OK, but I've never believed that the ends justifies the means. I'll never sell my soul for any reason. (not that I'm actually religious.)

OK my next post will be in keeping with the original subject. Absolute truth. One thing though. You eluded to a future explanation of why you dislike actual truth. At this time I would like to hear it, if you're ready.

[lancek4]

Ah - well, I think you are refering to my leaving off of 'actuality' in the definition.
This is bacause, again, I would need to qualify what is meant by actual.

Actual often is meant as 'that which is apparent of the physical world' as I take our definition - which excludes the more subjective experiences, such as thought and consciousness - as your original proposition.

My exclusion of 'actual' for our definition of the universe was to allow for the total inclusion of the effects of the brain (thought, etc..) and such in 'the totality of all that exists'. Thus the other problematic is the term 'exist'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Ah - well, I think you are refering to my leaving off of 'actuality' in the definition.
This is bacause, again, I would need to qualify what is meant by actual.

Actual often is meant as 'that which is apparent of the physical world' as I take our definition - which excludes the more subjective experiences, such as thought and consciousness - as your original proposition.

My exclusion of 'actual' for our definition of the universe was to allow for the total inclusion of the effects of the brain (thought, etc..) and such in 'the totality of all that exists'. Thus the other problematic is the term 'exist'.

OK, now we're 'actually' getting somewhere. This is the most crucial point of my argument for absolute truth and why I've said that humans know practically nothing. For the word actual is in fact mandatory. It itself delineates truth, because it negates human interpretation (mental artifacts), human affects.

Here's why:

The potential exists between any two humans for each to formulate a distinctly different hypothesis as to the truth of any objects particulars. This then illustrates one possible source of lies (falsehoods) and must be eliminated to achieve absolute truth which in my definition is devoid of human artifacts and is the raw unfettered actuality (reality) of existence. Hence my earlier statement, 'Absolute truth is that which exists without us.' It is not any humans responsibility to bend absolute truth to meet their inability in understanding but rather to bend their understanding to meet absolute truths actual existence, otherwise we live a life of illusion. This then is why there are several theories of truth criterion, whose aim is to negate the inabilities of human perception. The very nature of truth is the actual state of affairs. Lies and falsehoods are the only things realized when the absolute truth is ignored through human perception. This is not to say that absolute truth is impossible to realize. It is only to say that our current evolutionary status precludes its realization. If one is to embrace the possibilities of quantum mechanics then it is clear that humanity is capable of realizing absolute truth.