[quote=Skepdick post_id=503184 time=1616175573 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503182 time=1616175254 user_id=15238]
There's no conflict there. "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." That only means there is an additional necessity to understand where you draw the line, and why. In medicine, just as any other arena, it's a resource balancing equation.
[/quote]
The conflict is literally in the number of "valid hypotheses" you admit at the end of "thinking".
Occam's razor literally dismisses hypotheses with too many variables. Unlike diagnosticians.
[/quote]
That's a pragmatic necessity, not an epistemological error.
resolving god
Re: resolving god
You missed the point entirely.
Different pragmas produce different epistemologies.
Not a different WHAT you think, but a different HOW you think.
What's an outright "error" in one epistemology, is an "acceptable trade-off", a manageable risk, in another.
Re: resolving god
[quote=Skepdick post_id=503189 time=1616176649 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503185 time=1616176012 user_id=15238]
That's a pragmatic necessity, not an epistemological error.
[/quote]
You missed the point entirely.
Different pragmas produce different epistemologies.
Not a different WHAT you think, but a different HOW you think.
What's an outright "error" in one epistemology, is an "acceptable trade-off", a manageable risk, in another.
[/quote]
If they're valid they're drawing from the same pool and cannot conflict, the difference being only one of perspective or scope. A trade-off isn't an error, it's choosing what parts are relevant to a specific situation. That does not imply arbitrary or wrong.
[quote=Advocate post_id=503185 time=1616176012 user_id=15238]
That's a pragmatic necessity, not an epistemological error.
[/quote]
You missed the point entirely.
Different pragmas produce different epistemologies.
Not a different WHAT you think, but a different HOW you think.
What's an outright "error" in one epistemology, is an "acceptable trade-off", a manageable risk, in another.
[/quote]
If they're valid they're drawing from the same pool and cannot conflict, the difference being only one of perspective or scope. A trade-off isn't an error, it's choosing what parts are relevant to a specific situation. That does not imply arbitrary or wrong.
Re: resolving god
if its not the truth then its not the truth. there's no greater or lesser truth. ether it is what it is, or it is not.Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Mar 19, 2021 5:01 pmWell of course there are countless patterns and shared ideas and experiences. Each believing themselves to be right and the most true.DPMartin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:39 pm isn't knowledge or knowing a result of experience?but what if there's more that one who experience the same experience as in knowledge (knowing) of God? same God mind you.Lacewing wrote: There are countless experiences and claims of knowledge as a result of those experiences. Yes?
What?DPMartin wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:39 pmalso it seems you believe its your prerogative to believe what you want, you're wrong, very wrong. there is the Truth and everything else that is not the truth is a lie, and don't think to say there's more that one truth. na, that don't even make sense for in a case like this one, if this is true, than the other is not because its not the same as the first true.Is that supposed to make sense? You make a claim of what "the truth" is, and claim that no one else can know/believe another or a greater truth?
Re: resolving god
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503233 time=1616197594 user_id=13848]
if its not the truth then its not the truth. there's no greater or lesser truth. ether it is what it is, or it is not.
[/quote]
Yes. Truth is one thing, reality is one thing, despite there being infinite perspectives on it.
if its not the truth then its not the truth. there's no greater or lesser truth. ether it is what it is, or it is not.
[/quote]
Yes. Truth is one thing, reality is one thing, despite there being infinite perspectives on it.
Re: resolving god
It is next to impossible to discuss anything of significance with a person who sees only black and white... and who makes such statements as you do above, as if they say or clarify anything at all. What's more revealing is to look behind these statements, at what you think... and it appears that you think this "truth" you believe is THE absolute truth (yes?), despite what other humans have believed as truth across thousands of years and countless belief systems. Who is to say what "real" truth is? Who is so arrogant to claim to know it? Countless people.
Truth is a human concept. And "knowing" truth is a human concept. And each human throughout all of history has had ideas about truth. It only seems logical that anyone who thinks they know absolute truth, by ignoring all else to the contrary, is manifesting such an idea to serve or comfort themselves.
Re: resolving god
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503280 time=1616245505 user_id=11228]
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503233 time=1616197594 user_id=13848]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503155 time=1616169707 user_id=11228]
You make a claim of what "the truth" is, and claim that no one else can know/believe another or a greater truth?
[/quote]
if its not the truth then its not the truth. there's no greater or lesser truth. ether it is what it is, or it is not.
[/quote]
It is next to impossible to discuss anything of significance with a person who sees only black and white... and who makes such statements as you do above, as if they say or clarify anything at all. What's more revealing is to look behind these statements, at what you think... and it appears that you think this "truth" you believe is THE absolute truth (yes?), despite what other humans have believed as truth across thousands of years and countless belief systems. Who is to say what "real" truth is? Who is so arrogant to claim to know it? Countless people.
Truth is a human concept. And "knowing" truth is a human concept. And each human throughout all of history has had ideas about truth. It only seems logical that anyone who thinks they know absolute truth, by ignoring all else to the contrary, is manifesting such an idea to serve or comfort themselves.
[/quote]
Everyone knows absolute truth at some level. One's perspective on it, the lack of exhaustive consilience, is not a proper criteria for exclusion. The problem here is semantic. Actuality is beyond us, but Reality is always in our grasp, and Reality always represents Actuality when individual perspective is accounted for. This means not only the limits of perspective on physical space but also in time because Actuality changes, and because an individual's interpretive perspective over time will change with experience.
There is only one Truth but many truths. It's both black and white and infinitely grey at the same time, but if you understand the perspective bit there's no necessary conflict.
Actuality - things as they are without regard to observation or interpretation; inaccessible.
Reality - consensus experience; the parts of Actuality that we use to do things.
Truth - knowledge (justified belief) that is never refuted.
truth - an individual instance of Truth; perspective-bound.
If you use these definitions it all clears right up.
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503233 time=1616197594 user_id=13848]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503155 time=1616169707 user_id=11228]
You make a claim of what "the truth" is, and claim that no one else can know/believe another or a greater truth?
[/quote]
if its not the truth then its not the truth. there's no greater or lesser truth. ether it is what it is, or it is not.
[/quote]
It is next to impossible to discuss anything of significance with a person who sees only black and white... and who makes such statements as you do above, as if they say or clarify anything at all. What's more revealing is to look behind these statements, at what you think... and it appears that you think this "truth" you believe is THE absolute truth (yes?), despite what other humans have believed as truth across thousands of years and countless belief systems. Who is to say what "real" truth is? Who is so arrogant to claim to know it? Countless people.
Truth is a human concept. And "knowing" truth is a human concept. And each human throughout all of history has had ideas about truth. It only seems logical that anyone who thinks they know absolute truth, by ignoring all else to the contrary, is manifesting such an idea to serve or comfort themselves.
[/quote]
Everyone knows absolute truth at some level. One's perspective on it, the lack of exhaustive consilience, is not a proper criteria for exclusion. The problem here is semantic. Actuality is beyond us, but Reality is always in our grasp, and Reality always represents Actuality when individual perspective is accounted for. This means not only the limits of perspective on physical space but also in time because Actuality changes, and because an individual's interpretive perspective over time will change with experience.
There is only one Truth but many truths. It's both black and white and infinitely grey at the same time, but if you understand the perspective bit there's no necessary conflict.
Actuality - things as they are without regard to observation or interpretation; inaccessible.
Reality - consensus experience; the parts of Actuality that we use to do things.
Truth - knowledge (justified belief) that is never refuted.
truth - an individual instance of Truth; perspective-bound.
If you use these definitions it all clears right up.
Re: resolving god
no, things like truth may be viewed as concepts by you but, its true that if you step in front of a speeding bus it will kill you. that isn't a concept that required contemplation, its a truth to be known and understood by not only the one who stepped in front of the bus but those who witnessed it.Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Mar 20, 2021 2:05 pmIt is next to impossible to discuss anything of significance with a person who sees only black and white... and who makes such statements as you do above, as if they say or clarify anything at all. What's more revealing is to look behind these statements, at what you think... and it appears that you think this "truth" you believe is THE absolute truth (yes?), despite what other humans have believed as truth across thousands of years and countless belief systems. Who is to say what "real" truth is? Who is so arrogant to claim to know it? Countless people.
Truth is a human concept. And "knowing" truth is a human concept. And each human throughout all of history has had ideas about truth. It only seems logical that anyone who thinks they know absolute truth, by ignoring all else to the contrary, is manifesting such an idea to serve or comfort themselves.
there's no gray area there. ether you use the knowledge to not step in front of speeding buses, or you don't.
and no humans don't determine what the truth is, the truth is the truth no matter what the truth is, whether or not any man knows it or not.
the earth orbits the sun and that is the truth, even if no man exists to know it.
granted words themselves are concepts but that doesn't make what they represent concepts. 2x4 represents a shape of precut wood but the per cut wood isn't a concept.
Re: resolving god
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503598 time=1616425872 user_id=13848]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503280 time=1616245505 user_id=11228]
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503233 time=1616197594 user_id=13848]
if its not the truth then its not the truth. there's no greater or lesser truth. ether it is what it is, or it is not.
[/quote]
It is next to impossible to discuss anything of significance with a person who sees only black and white... and who makes such statements as you do above, as if they say or clarify anything at all. What's more revealing is to look behind these statements, at what you think... and it appears that you think this "truth" you believe is THE absolute truth (yes?), despite what other humans have believed as truth across thousands of years and countless belief systems. Who is to say what "real" truth is? Who is so arrogant to claim to know it? Countless people.
Truth is a human concept. And "knowing" truth is a human concept. And each human throughout all of history has had ideas about truth. It only seems logical that anyone who thinks they know absolute truth, by ignoring all else to the contrary, is manifesting such an idea to serve or comfort themselves.
[/quote]
no, things like truth may be viewed as concepts by you but, its true that if you step in front of a speeding bus it will kill you. that isn't a concept that required contemplation, its a truth to be known and understood by not only the one who stepped in front of the bus but those who witnessed it.
there's no gray area there. ether you use the knowledge to not step in front of speeding buses, or you don't.
and no humans don't determine what the truth is, the truth is the truth no matter what the truth is, whether or not any man knows it or not.
the earth orbits the sun and that is the truth, even if no man exists to know it.
granted words themselves are concepts but that doesn't make what they represent concepts. 2x4 represents a shape of precut wood but the per cut wood isn't a concept.
[/quote]
Actuality, things as they really are, is undifferentiated stuff doing stuff, and the distinction between bus and brain matter is irrelevant in time and space. Our world, reality, exists in our brain. That reality is things we distinguished out of that stuff for various practical purposes. Some things have only internal representations and others, like buses and ex-brains have external correlates.
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503280 time=1616245505 user_id=11228]
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503233 time=1616197594 user_id=13848]
if its not the truth then its not the truth. there's no greater or lesser truth. ether it is what it is, or it is not.
[/quote]
It is next to impossible to discuss anything of significance with a person who sees only black and white... and who makes such statements as you do above, as if they say or clarify anything at all. What's more revealing is to look behind these statements, at what you think... and it appears that you think this "truth" you believe is THE absolute truth (yes?), despite what other humans have believed as truth across thousands of years and countless belief systems. Who is to say what "real" truth is? Who is so arrogant to claim to know it? Countless people.
Truth is a human concept. And "knowing" truth is a human concept. And each human throughout all of history has had ideas about truth. It only seems logical that anyone who thinks they know absolute truth, by ignoring all else to the contrary, is manifesting such an idea to serve or comfort themselves.
[/quote]
no, things like truth may be viewed as concepts by you but, its true that if you step in front of a speeding bus it will kill you. that isn't a concept that required contemplation, its a truth to be known and understood by not only the one who stepped in front of the bus but those who witnessed it.
there's no gray area there. ether you use the knowledge to not step in front of speeding buses, or you don't.
and no humans don't determine what the truth is, the truth is the truth no matter what the truth is, whether or not any man knows it or not.
the earth orbits the sun and that is the truth, even if no man exists to know it.
granted words themselves are concepts but that doesn't make what they represent concepts. 2x4 represents a shape of precut wood but the per cut wood isn't a concept.
[/quote]
Actuality, things as they really are, is undifferentiated stuff doing stuff, and the distinction between bus and brain matter is irrelevant in time and space. Our world, reality, exists in our brain. That reality is things we distinguished out of that stuff for various practical purposes. Some things have only internal representations and others, like buses and ex-brains have external correlates.
Re: resolving god
What do you think is "known and understood" by witnesses who witness a person get hit by a speeding bus and survive; or by the very person who survived the ordeal?DPMartin wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 4:11 pm no, things like truth may be viewed as concepts by you but, its true that if you step in front of a speeding bus it will kill you. that isn't a concept that required contemplation, its a truth to be known and understood by not only the one who stepped in front of the bus but those who witnessed it.
There is a grey area. Unintentionally getting hit by a bus anyway (because I wasn't paying attention). At which point my chances or survival; or death is a probability distribution.
No it isn't. That's just one way to describe it - it's just one model. You've assumed a fixed point (the sun) and you've described the motion of Earth in relation to the Sun using the word "orbit".
You could've gone for a different approach. You could assume the Earth as your fixed point and then you could've described the Sun's motion in relation to that instead. It's precisely what the Ptolemaic model did.
"precut wood" is absolutely a concept.
From the lens of a biologist, or a chemist there's no such thing. There's just cells, molecules, atoms in a particular arrangement.
Re: resolving god
A bus is part of the human world. Humans decide what is truth based on their own concepts. Human concepts and human truth are limited to the human world. Overlaying human concepts and supposed "truth" onto that which is beyond such limitations... is a fantasy.
Re: resolving god
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503613 time=1616428493 user_id=11228]
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503598 time=1616425872 user_id=13848]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503280 time=1616245505 user_id=11228]
Truth is a human concept.
[/quote]
no, things like truth may be viewed as concepts by you but, its true that if you step in front of a speeding bus it will kill you.[/quote]
A bus is part of the human world. Humans decide what is truth based on their own concepts. Human concepts and human truth are limited to the human world. Overlaying human concepts and supposed "truth" onto that which is beyond such limitations... is a fantasy.
[/quote]
People use the words truth and reality alternately in either side of this line:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/
That is a fundamental ontological error. To clear up the confusion, use:
Actuality - the universe as it actually is (left side of the chart)
Reality - our more or less consensus understanding of the world (right side of the chart)
Knowledge - justified belief
Truth - knowledge that replicates continuously
truth - an individual instance of Truth, such as a fact or a perspective
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503598 time=1616425872 user_id=13848]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503280 time=1616245505 user_id=11228]
Truth is a human concept.
[/quote]
no, things like truth may be viewed as concepts by you but, its true that if you step in front of a speeding bus it will kill you.[/quote]
A bus is part of the human world. Humans decide what is truth based on their own concepts. Human concepts and human truth are limited to the human world. Overlaying human concepts and supposed "truth" onto that which is beyond such limitations... is a fantasy.
[/quote]
People use the words truth and reality alternately in either side of this line:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/
That is a fundamental ontological error. To clear up the confusion, use:
Actuality - the universe as it actually is (left side of the chart)
Reality - our more or less consensus understanding of the world (right side of the chart)
Knowledge - justified belief
Truth - knowledge that replicates continuously
truth - an individual instance of Truth, such as a fact or a perspective
Re: resolving god
Great! We used to have one word for such things "existence". Then somebody decided we should clear up the confusion with "reality"; and then "truth".Advocate wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 5:11 pm People use the words truth and reality alternately in either side of this line:
That is a fundamental ontological error. To clear up the confusion, use:
Actuality - the universe as it actually is (left side of the chart)
Reality - our more or less consensus understanding of the world (right side of the chart)
Now we are clearing it up again with "actuality".
At some point somebody ought to figure out that's the opposite of clarity?
Re: resolving god
[quote=Skepdick post_id=503619 time=1616429641 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503617 time=1616429517 user_id=15238]
People use the words truth and reality alternately in either side of this line:
That is a fundamental ontological error. To clear up the confusion, use:
Actuality - the universe as it actually is (left side of the chart)
Reality - our more or less consensus understanding of the world (right side of the chart)
[/quote]
Great! We used to have one word for such things "existence". Then somebody decided we should clear up the confusion with "reality"; and then "truth".
Now we are clearing it up again with "actuality".
At some point somebody ought to figure out that's the opposite of clarity?
[img]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png[/img]
[/quote]
If you refuse to accept a necessary and sufficient set of definitions, who's the clarity foe?
[quote=Advocate post_id=503617 time=1616429517 user_id=15238]
People use the words truth and reality alternately in either side of this line:
That is a fundamental ontological error. To clear up the confusion, use:
Actuality - the universe as it actually is (left side of the chart)
Reality - our more or less consensus understanding of the world (right side of the chart)
[/quote]
Great! We used to have one word for such things "existence". Then somebody decided we should clear up the confusion with "reality"; and then "truth".
Now we are clearing it up again with "actuality".
At some point somebody ought to figure out that's the opposite of clarity?
[img]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png[/img]
[/quote]
If you refuse to accept a necessary and sufficient set of definitions, who's the clarity foe?
Re: resolving god
If you keep insisting that any definition is "necessary" or "sufficient" without explicitly stating the context in which they are sufficient/necessary then you are my foe.
There are no context-free/timeless truths. That's the religion of Philosophy - it's a religion that has outlived its usefulness.