Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: Ignorance... ignoring that which is known.

Post by ken » Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:37 pm

Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
ken wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:52 am
Exactly how I was portraying in the way I asked the clarifying question, that is 'truth' is relative.
So it is, but that isn't the same as saying 'anything can be true'. It is relative - to our other beliefs. And it can fail to be relative - it may be that it is inconsistent with our other beliefs.
Beliefs are NOT necessary and can distort, so WHY have other beliefs at all?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
In that case, we would be saying something was both true and false at the same time i.e. not making an assertion of truth at all.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
Some may say, "That part of the description was untrue". Whereas, I would say or imply, "That part of the description TO ME is untrue BECAUSE ...."
I would see that as contradictory. If there is a 'BECAUSE' then that says there are reasons you think as you do, reasons that can be explained to other people. But 'TO ME' is subjective, it describes your state of mind.
Can you define 'mind'?

And, explain how mind is relative to 'you'? In other words, what does 'your state of mind' actually mean? Who/what is the 'you', and what is the relation between the 'you' and 'your' 'state of mind'?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
If I say something is true FOR ME then it is necessarily true (assuming I am being honest about my opinions).
It is NOT necessarily true for the very reasons I give. For example if and when I provide a 'BECAUSE' I am providing the very reason of WHY I see some thing as being untrue. The fact is that what I am seeing may be distorted, and only by providing the very reason (or the 'BECAUSE') of WHY i am seeing some thing as untrue to other people, then with that information other people are then better able to explain things better.
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
Then we have to go back to what is the definition of 'Universe', and if 'Universe' means some thing like ALL-THERE-IS, then there is only 'the Universe'. If, however, we want to define 'Universe' as some thing else, then we need to look at the definition, come to an agreement, and then accept that definition for the rest of the discussion.
Indeed. What else might 'the universe' describe? If we do not mean 'everything', then some things would be outside the universe, in which case where are they?
EXACTLY.

I consistently question WHY some people want to change the definition of 'Universe' for?

Do they want to change it because what they are now thinking, seeing, assuming, and/or believing to be true does not fit with that definition of 'Universe'?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
This is easily solved by just coming together in agreement and acceptance of what each word means before we have a discussion. Although very easy to do, it takes some time and can be very tedious to do so...

A huge reason human beings disagree, dispute, fight, and even kill each other is just over the perceived meaning of a word or words.
But that is not the case with science.
Are you saying people within the scientific fields have NEVER disagreed nor disputed over the perceived meaning of a word?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
Science deals with the measurable, so words have a precise meaning.


Are you suggesting that ALL people KNOW the "precise meaning" for each and all words, and that there has NEVER been any dispute whatsoever over the "precise" meaning given to a word?
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
And because things must be measurable, then they must all stand in relation to each other. As you say above, 'truth is relative', so what we mean by 'light' is relative to everything else in science. That means we cannot extract 'light' from our understanding of everything else.
Understanding WHY human beings have a tendency to pick a side, and then argue/fight for that particular side, like for example religion or science, provides far deeper meaning of things then what you are just saying here.

Come to understand WHY you think one "side" is "better" than the other, then you will better understand EXACTLY WHY 'truth is relative'.

Your presumption that science is infallible here, in this regard of having the "precise" meanings, shows which side you are prepared to fight and argue for.
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
What I said was not really like saying 2=2 might equal 6 because what I want to say is not really that different from what people already observe. What I was saying was what I observe is different from what you observe but if I was to think that what I observe is true and what you observe must be wrong, then that is ignoring the very actual true fact. That is what we individually, and collectively, observe may not be the actual truth. So, if I was to believe that what I think and see is true, is true, then I would be missing the correct point of view, which allows being able to find and see the real and actual truth...

EXACTLY.

I have NOT even really begun to explain what I observe yet.

And, the ONLY true way to understand another's point of view is to ask clarifying questions of them about what it is that they are actually saying, and then challenge them if there is any disagreement. But what happens mostly now is people are very quick to challenge or usually more often just dismiss or reject any thing that is seen to be a different, a new, or an opposing perspective or point of view.
Then I should ask; What is it that you have observed?
HOW the Mind and the brain work, and thus HOW ALL human beings, themselves, actual work, think and mis/behave.
Londoner wrote:
Tue Oct 17, 2017 9:58 am
Or more precisely; 'What is your theory?' Because an observation is meaningless without a theory. Or even more precisely, since no observation can verify a theory; 'What hypothesis does your observation show to be invalid?'
An observation may not be able to verify a theory, but if an observation is expressed as a statement that is an unambiguous fact, which can not be disputed, then that provides far more meaning than any theory or hypothesis would.

IF 'hypothesis' means a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, then each hypothesis is 'invalid', in the sense that the truth is found far quicker, far simpler, and far easier by just looking at and observing what IS. Looking at and observing only what IS PRIOR to making any assumption at all, then there is NO need for any theory and/or hypothesis. These things can be wrong, so WHY bother with them any way?

Proposing or supposing explanations, made on the basis of limited evidence, as a starting point for further investigation, which both religious and scientific texts are guilty of, indirectly and directly influences the outcome of what will be "found" and "seen".

There are countless examples of this happening throughout history but just take the proposed and supposed explanation "In the beginning ..." for example. Still to this day, some people with either religious or scientific, or both, tendencies still assume and/or believe that there was a beginning. This proposing or supposing explanations BEFORE looking at the actual true facts of things, has NEVER helped any one to discover, see, and observe the actual true facts, which are staring at us ALL, right NOW.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests