Misconceiving Truth

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by HexHammer » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:15 pm

This illusion thing of concoiusness, is iMo nonsense. A bad misterm. However Google has low functional concousness, as it has enhanced analytic abilities.

Many people do the mistake of looking at things with a binary approach, only considering high conciousness or none.

..there are many shades of grey afterall.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4965
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:54 pm

Hessian,

“The true statement would be that people exist who call this place x, and there are other people who exist who call this place y”

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I’ve been sayin’ all along.

##

Hex,

“Truth is in itself a undefineable concept”

So: we – you and me – got nuthin’ more to talk about then.

Again: truth = what is real (my definition).

If you think truth is “undefineable” then we aren’t even playin’ in the same park.

*shrug*

##

Gee,

“I believe that you stated that truth is real”

Nope. Pretty much, over and over, I’ve said this, ‘truth = what is real’, what exists as independent of you and me and every one else.

A simple test: if every one on the planet dies right now, what’s left is real.

That is: Hex’s beloved Copenhagen would remain (the ordered assemblies of matter) but the symbol, the placeholder ‘Copenhagen’ would be gone. ‘Copenhagen’ (the symbol, the placeholder; not the ordered assemblies of matter) only exists in the heads of folks. When the folks are gone, the symbol is gone (more specifically: the meaning of the symbol is gone…sure, road signs with ‘Copenhagen’ would remain but without a person to ‘see’ and ‘understand’ the symbol, the symbol is nuthin’ but paint [matter] on a sign [matter]).

#

“There are only two truths in the above scenario; Lil Jane was bitten by a dog and Lil Jane is now afraid of dogs.”

Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said.

##

Hessian,

“I am confused"

Yeah, me too.

Might be a good idea for everyone to read the thread over from the start.

Seems to me: lots of misunderstanding and mis-categorizing of positions and posts is goin’ on here.

A sez ‘this’ and B claims A said ‘that’.

Makes for a stalled or stalling conversation.

A body shouldn’t have to keep stating what he’s already stated (in plain English).

##

Wander,

“Truth is actually simpler than we thought - the Law of Interconnection, that we are All One and bonded by the universal will.”

I disagree.

Like me and Hex, you and me aren’t, it seems, playin’ in the same park.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re:

Post by cladking » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:15 pm

henry quirk wrote: That is: Hex’s beloved Copenhagen would remain (the ordered assemblies of matter) but the symbol, the placeholder ‘Copenhagen’ would be gone. ‘Copenhagen’ (the symbol, the placeholder; not the ordered assemblies of matter) only exists in the heads of folks. When the folks are gone, the symbol is gone (more specifically: the meaning of the symbol is gone…sure, road signs with ‘Copenhagen’ would remain but without a person to ‘see’ and ‘understand’ the symbol, the symbol is nuthin’ but paint [matter] on a sign [matter]).
"Copenhagen" exists only in language; only from an infinite perspective. It does not exist as an entity and has far more in common with a process than a place. This is invisible to us because once we lose our perspective the concept of "Copenhagen" vanishes. Rather than being a point on a map it has been an important agricultural/ fishing/ manufacturing/ administrative center for centuries. It has been under various governmental agencies and no individual has spanned more than about 115 years of its life. A person returning to the city after a long absense might not recognize landmarks or see any familiar face. Its location is not fixed as it continually annexes and deannexes land.

The fact is Copenhagen is in Denmark (though even this could be disputed based on any number of criteria), the truth must be phrased in a manner that accounts for perspective. Truth is more difficult (or at least wordy) to describe from our perspective.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4965
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:46 pm

Clad,

I wrote: Hex’s beloved Copenhagen would remain (the ordered assemblies of matter) but the symbol, the placeholder ‘Copenhagen’ would be gone. ‘Copenhagen’ (the symbol, the placeholder; not the ordered assemblies of matter) only exists in the heads of folks. When the folks are gone, the symbol is gone (more specifically: the meaning of the symbol is gone…sure, road signs with ‘Copenhagen’ would remain but without a person to ‘see’ and ‘understand’ the symbol, the symbol is nuthin’ but paint [matter] on a sign [matter]).

You wrote: "Copenhagen" exists only in language; only from an infinite perspective. It does not exist as an entity and has far more in common with a process than a place. This is invisible to us because once we lose our perspective the concept of "Copenhagen" vanishes. Rather than being a point on a map it has been an important agricultural/ fishing/ manufacturing/ administrative center for centuries. It has been under various governmental agencies and no individual has spanned more than about 115 years of its life. A person returning to the city after a long absense might not recognize landmarks or see any familiar face. Its location is not fixed as it continually annexes and deannexes land. The fact is Copenhagen is in Denmark (though even this could be disputed based on any number of criteria), the truth must be phrased in a manner that accounts for perspective.

Aren't we -- you and me -- sayin' the same thing? Yeah, there are few points I might nitpick on in your passage, but -- substantially -- we seem to be sayin' the same thing, yes?

Just doin' a reality check on myself.

#

"Truth is more difficult (or at least wordy) to describe from our perspective."

Seems to me truth is only difficult if one confuses what exists independent of one with what only exists in one's head.

cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re:

Post by cladking » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:59 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Aren't we -- you and me -- sayin' the same thing? Yeah, there are few points I might nitpick on in your passage, but -- substantially -- we seem to be sayin' the same thing, yes?

Just doin' a reality check on myself.
Yes, in a sense we're saying the same thing except I don't believe "Copenhagen" exists even now. It exists only in language and this is the language in which we think and its perspective is from an infinite distance. If you take the people out of the city is simply becomes a different kind of process; rather than creating and building this process involves deterioration and stagnation. One could make a sound argument that it isn't Copenhagen at all.

The truth is Copenhagen is more a process than a place.

Seems to me truth is only difficult if one confuses what exists independent of one with what only exists in one's head.
I think this is less true since the advent of modern language.

I'll have to think about it a bit but I'm in surprisingly close agreement from any perspective.

User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by WanderingLands » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:02 pm

Wander,

“Truth is actually simpler than we thought - the Law of Interconnection, that we are All One and bonded by the universal will.”

I disagree.

Like me and Hex, you and me aren’t, it seems, playin’ in the same park.
Alright, then what is your case against it?

the Hessian
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by the Hessian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:31 pm

A good night's sleep helps the mind articulate a way forward for this conversation.
  • Truth: a quality of a statement one makes about the real such that there is something in the real that justifies the statement. Truth is synonymous with Gee's definition of a "fact"
  • Absolute truth: effectively nonsense, since it would entail a statement that includes all possible facts. Such a statement does not exist.
  • Subjective truth: a poorly worded concept that is better defined as "meaning." Meaning results from an awareness of facts. It is an interpretive act that is part of the decision making process. It is used to help guide future action. It makes no sense to talk about the truth of a meaning.
  • Wisdom: (Gee's term that I am trying to find a way to include) a quality of a meaning such that it tends to lead to beneficial or agreeable actions
This needs to be tightened up, but I think the basic outline addresses most of the positions laid out in the discussion so far.

And just for shits and giggles, I'll throw a more radical hypothesis out, because, well, controversy sells.

Metaphysics comes from the drive to provide an ontological status to our interpretive processes. We want to give fact status to our meanings, which is where the shit hits the fan.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by HexHammer » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:19 pm

@henry quirk

Now you must have missed when I spoke of road signs in chinese, and by your definition there should be no confusion about cities because they'r there.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EtYBo093ftk/U ... hinois.jpg

Tell me what the road sign says, this time you just can't use a internet translator for you. So by your definition it should be easy to find your way.
the Hessian wrote:
HexHammer wrote:But Imo we can't just make a simple definition of truth, which I have said all along, that simple thing escapes you.
We can, and I did.
When? Please show me!

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4965
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:18 pm

"what is your case against it?"

You write: "Truth is actually simpler than we thought - the Law of Interconnection, that we are All One and bonded by the universal will."

Simply, as I look at the world, move through the world, consider myself in the world, I see no "Law of Interconnection", only interactions...I see no "universal will", only an amoral, unthinking, universe...I see myself as discrete, I see no 'One'.

##

"Metaphysics comes from the drive to provide an ontological status to our interpretive processes. We want to give fact status to our meanings, which is where the shit hits the fan."

I agree.

##

"by your definition there should be no confusion about cities because they'r there."

Nope. Nowhere, in any of what I've posted, could a thinking person draw that conclusion (if such a person actually read what I posted).

##

Clad,

Thanks for confirming what I thought (that we were largely on the same page): good man, you!

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:02 pm

HexHammer wrote:This illusion thing of concoiusness, is iMo nonsense. A bad misterm. However Google has low functional concousness, as it has enhanced analytic abilities.

Many people do the mistake of looking at things with a binary approach, only considering high conciousness or none.

..there are many shades of grey afterall.


What does iMo mean?

Ginkgo
Posts: 2523
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:08 pm

This might help clarification a bit. On the other hand...

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_Indiscernibles

User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5329
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by SpheresOfBalance » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:23 pm

Ginkgo wrote:
HexHammer wrote:This illusion thing of concoiusness, is iMo nonsense. A bad misterm. However Google has low functional concousness, as it has enhanced analytic abilities.

Many people do the mistake of looking at things with a binary approach, only considering high conciousness or none.

..there are many shades of grey afterall.


What does iMo mean?
"in My opinion" Though I prefer IMHO "in my honest opinion", as an acronym it should have been all capped.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by HexHammer » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:52 pm

Ginkgo wrote:What does iMo mean?
iMo = imo = in my oppinion

the Hessian
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 5:58 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by the Hessian » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:00 pm

HexHammer wrote:@henry quirk

Now you must have missed when I spoke of road signs in chinese, and by your definition there should be no confusion about cities because they'r there.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-EtYBo093ftk/U ... hinois.jpg

Tell me what the road sign says, this time you just can't use a internet translator for you. So by your definition it should be easy to find your way.
the Hessian wrote:
HexHammer wrote:But Imo we can't just make a simple definition of truth, which I have said all along, that simple thing escapes you.
We can, and I did.
When? Please show me!
Look at the post directly above where you posted this. I'd write it in crayon for you if I could.

User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3266
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by HexHammer » Fri Jun 20, 2014 2:31 am

the Hessian wrote:Look at the post directly above where you posted this. I'd write it in crayon for you if I could.
If that's u'r best shot, then that is a "rainbow chaser" attempt at best.

Would it show any faults in a calculation, if engineers used the wrong kind of concrete so that the bridge will crumble in 50 years instead of 200 years?
..no?

Would it show if the surgeon has done a 100% flawless job? ..no?

Would it show if person A or person B killed the victim? ..no?

..will it infact show anything? ..no?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests