personal truth

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:04 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 10:38 pm Just out of curiosity are you a realist and/or platonist on mathematics?
Not a Platonist. I think numbers have an adjectival relation to the empirical world, not that they are fixtures of some realm of ideal forms.
"Adjectival" but not language-oriented?
"Adjectival" in function. That means that a number always "modifies," (if we use the language of grammar) a noun. In the phrase, "two sheep," or "two water towers" for example, you have adjective plus noun, in both cases. Mathematically, that might be "2X." But "2X" is a mathematical symbol set, not a linguistic utterance.

I'm sure this is frightfully obvious to you. So let's save ourselves some boring time, and jump ahead to the point you want to make.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: personal truth

Post by Terrapin Station »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:31 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:04 pm
Not a Platonist. I think numbers have an adjectival relation to the empirical world, not that they are fixtures of some realm of ideal forms.
"Adjectival" but not language-oriented?
"Adjectival" in function. That means that a number always "modifies," (if we use the language of grammar) a noun. In the phrase, "two sheep," or "two water towers" for example, you have adjective plus noun, in both cases. Mathematically, that might be "2X." But "2X" is a mathematical symbol set, not a linguistic utterance.

I'm sure this is frightfully obvious to you. So let's save ourselves some boring time, and jump ahead to the point you want to make.
Again, just trying to explore (and understand) your views as such at the moment.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:38 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:36 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:31 pm
"Adjectival" but not language-oriented?
"Adjectival" in function. That means that a number always "modifies," (if we use the language of grammar) a noun. In the phrase, "two sheep," or "two water towers" for example, you have adjective plus noun, in both cases. Mathematically, that might be "2X." But "2X" is a mathematical symbol set, not a linguistic utterance.

I'm sure this is frightfully obvious to you. So let's save ourselves some boring time, and jump ahead to the point you want to make.
Again, just trying to explore (and understand) your views as such at the moment.
Okay. Well, I suspect you got there long ago...or probably should have. So I'm glad to have been of service in that.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: personal truth

Post by Advocate »

Personal truth makes perfect sense. In interpreting information there is always perspective to be accounted for. It is not always relevant but it is always there.

An instance of The Truth is "a truth", bound by perspective physically or in time. An individual's perspective is their truth, their window on The Truth. Whether their framing is sufficient depends on the intended use.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:33 pm And I'm just asking what the requisite evidence would look like, if you had seen it.
What is your evidence for yourself, since you're the one who believes it. What kinds of ongoing proof do you see, or is it just that you can't fathom anything else?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:33 pm And I'm just asking what the requisite evidence would look like, if you had seen it.
What is your evidence for yourself, since you're the one who believes it.
Well, of course, I have a view of that. But first, I think you do owe me an answer to my question.

After all, the alleged lack of "consistent and verifiable" proof was raised by you. It seems to me quite reasonable to ask what sort of proof you were expecting, that you claim has gone lacking.

Or was it the case that you had nothing at all in mind? :shock: That no such "consistent and verifiable" proof has gone lacking at all, and you were just speculating? In that case, we would have no problem to address, since you would be already accepting that such evidence has not gone missing...
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:35 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:52 pm What is your evidence for yourself, since you're the one who believes it.
Well, of course, I have a view of that. But first, I think you do owe me an answer to my question.

After all, the alleged lack of "consistent and verifiable" proof was raised by you. It seems to me quite reasonable to ask what sort of proof you were expecting, that you claim has gone lacking.
There is a great range of human imaginings about gods throughout human history and cultures -- based on what serves the humans that imagine it. Supposed form, purpose, messages of all these gods vary greatly. The culture creates what works for it... yet, cultures fall away, and human history goes on. Theists uphold "their" god, and reject (and war with) "other" gods -- which is possible because there is no proof to align such varied beliefs. Theists tell the story of what is of their god, and what is not -- even though their god supposedly created all of it. Theists are running the show, and claiming it is their god, when and how it suits them. Anything theists attribute to a god can be just as easily attributed to other factors.

Now, what is your evidence for yourself? What is the view you say you have?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:22 pm There is a great range of human imaginings about gods throughout human history and cultures...
There are even more wrong answers to "What is 2+2."
Anything theists attribute to a god can be just as easily attributed to other factors.
You could say, for example, "It could be evolution." Questions remain about it, of course; but it's at least a plausible alternate story. But again, the presence of two different answers to "What is 2+2," say, "4" and "5," does not suggest any problem exists with the answer "4," far less that there is no real answer. For another seeming answer might be "6," "7"....and "3.14"... Even the presence of an infinite number of wrong answers logically tells us zero about the possibility of a true answer.

All of that, however, begs the question: "What evidence is lacking?" Do you plan to answer that?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: personal truth

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Lacewing post_id=505341 time=1617211339 user_id=11228]
What is your evidence for yourself, since you're the one who believes it.
[/quote]

The word self means my experience of continuity. Each person chooses their own internal limits according to that with which they most identify, and a similar process happens externally in relation to others.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:59 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:22 pm There is a great range of human imaginings about gods throughout human history and cultures...
There are even more wrong answers to "What is 2+2."
What is your evidence for yourself? What is the view you say you have?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:59 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:22 pm There is a great range of human imaginings about gods throughout human history and cultures...
There are even more wrong answers to "What is 2+2."
What is your evidence for yourself? What is the view you say you have?
What's the evidence you say is missing? I may have it. Let's see.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:27 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:12 pm What is your evidence for yourself? What is the view you say you have?
What's the evidence you say is missing? I may have it. Let's see.
I already responded to the previous question about the lack of consistency and verifiability. I don't need to continue answering every twisted question you project at me. It's your turn to show how honorable you are and answer the question that has been put to you several times now: Tell us your evidence for the god you claim exists.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:56 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:27 pm
Lacewing wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:12 pm What is your evidence for yourself? What is the view you say you have?
What's the evidence you say is missing? I may have it. Let's see.
I already responded to the previous question about the lack of consistency and verifiability.
I must have completely missed the response. My question was " "What evidence is lacking?"

I cannot find an answers to that in your previous replies, though I checked back. Is that because it's too difficult a question? I mean that without irony. Is it too hard to think of something "verifiable and consistent" that would constitute evidence for God?

But if so, it can't be lacking or missing, then.

So let me ask it another way: what would you accept as "verifiable and consistent" evidence for God? If I hope to convince you, I at least need to know what challenge it is you're putting to me.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: personal truth

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:13 am I must have completely missed the response. My question was " "What evidence is lacking?"
I’m done with you now. You want to control the conversation in your usual sickening fashion rather than backing up your own theist claims. My part in this conversation does not prevent you from doing that if you were able to. It is not my job to disprove your beliefs so that you can then try to gleefully announce they’re validated.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: personal truth

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 4:06 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:13 am I must have completely missed the response. My question was " "What evidence is lacking?"
I’m done with you now.
Ah. So there is no proof you would ever accept. Or you can't even think of what proof you could ask of me, that would make you seem reasonable. But for one of those reasons, that simple question is too complicated for a response, I see.

Well, I don't know what I can tell you, then: if you would never accept any evidence for the existence of God, I think we can both be sure you'll never have any.

But the problem is clearly not on God's end of the equation, then.
Post Reply