Misconceiving Truth

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"Complete mistranslation"

Blame the translator.

#

"it has nothing to do with the meaning of the saying"

Which, I'm pretty sure, has nuthin' to do with anything I've posted in this thread.

Divert away, Hex.
Ginkgo
Posts: 2606
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by Ginkgo »

cladking wrote:
Ginkgo wrote:

Science was founded on metaphysics, it was called natural science up until about the time of Newton.

Science was once based on Euclidean geometry; modern scientific theories now deal in a variety of non-Euclidean geometries.
Very little changed except the name from "natural science" to "physics". It did seem that early on there was more emphasis on "applied science"; adapting new knowledge to existing belief and infrastructure.

There are many different geometries used now days but these are invaribly reconverted to euclidean geometry before being implemented or published, I believe. This is primarily for ease of use but all true maths simply reflect natural logic. 2 + 2 = 2 X 2 for all practical purposes in all practical maths.

I suppose your point stands that "euclidean geometry" might no longer be considered part of the metaphysics of science. However, since science's metaphysics includes experimental results it might be legitimate to consider previous metaphysics as relevant to current science.
Very little has changed??? Have you ever undertaken an academic study of philosophy and physics?


No, this is not correct. Quantum mechanics for examples uses non-Euclidean geometry. Quantum mechanics doesn't reflect any simplistic maths of the type 2+2. Have a look at the Schrodinger equation.


You have already told me that we cannot design experiments for testing metaphysical claims such as existence, essence and being.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3346
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re:

Post by HexHammer »

henry quirk wrote:"Complete mistranslation"

Blame the translator.

#

"it has nothing to do with the meaning of the saying"

Which, I'm pretty sure, has nuthin' to do with anything I've posted in this thread.

Divert away, Hex.
You havn't understood a fucking thing, you live in a delusion.

You only see a very limited option to the subject, in Denmark and probaly the rest of the world we have plenty of small towns that share the same name, some with great tourist value, thus tourists can be confused about the names.
So your concept of truth about a city with all kinds of weird things you pour into your definition doesn't eliminate the great relative and subjectivenss of the matter.

Machine/electronic translators are notoriously bad at translating, as they will too often make a direct translation, thus miss the deeper meaning. You should know that.

Thus truth is still elusive, relative and subjective.
cladking
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 6:57 am

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by cladking »

Ginkgo wrote:

Very little has changed??? Have you ever undertaken an academic study of philosophy and physics?
I often say that I'm self taught but I had a poor teacher. It doesn't matter so much since I'm not a good student anyway.
No, this is not correct. Quantum mechanics for examples uses non-Euclidean geometry.
Anything built in the real world must have been converted to euclidean geometry first.
Have a look at the Schrodinger equation.
You obviously have me over a barrel here. Even back when I still had a knack for math I doubt I could have followed this.
You have already told me that we cannot design experiments for testing metaphysical claims such as existence, essence and being.
I didn't really say that but I suppose it's probably true. In the old science such things weren't observable because they were axiomatic and in modern science they are hidden by language. It's hardly impossible that modern science or a hybrid of these sciences might someday be able to address them but it's probably unlikely. One would have to invent a perspective outside reality and then be able to isolate some variable that is different than what's being observed in reality. It's a very tall order. There might be a great number of more important inventions and discoveries to be made first. Since the tool determines the work to a large extent there might be very little ability to affect the order of discoveries.

A hybrid of these sciences is what exists today but it is based on the metaphysics of modern science.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

"You havn't understood a fucking thing"

Oh, I understand perfectly.

You're incapable of distinguishing between the 'thing' and 'the name of the thing'.

No wonder you believe "truth is...elusive, relative and subjective".

That ten towns share the same name means only that ten towns share the same consensually agreed-upon placeholder...the towns remain separate and distinct from one another, the existence of each is independent of the symbols used to signify any of them.

In the same way: a town having two different names (placeholders, symbols) does not render that town into two separate entities.

Bluntly: the symbol, name, placeholder is in your head and what that symbol, name, placeholder stands for (in our shared examples, a town) is outside your head and is independent of your head.

Truth (what is real, what is true) is not elusive or subjective; symbols and perspective often are.

Learn to tell the difference...or not...don't care either way.

*shrug*
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by henry quirk »

"I am contending that humans once had a metaphysical language...(m)etaphysical language is more prone to name processes than things...(m)etaphysical language uses words with only one possible meaning"

Problem with your notions: there's no evidence of a single root-language (from which humans drifted away) and lots of evidence that many languages developed independently of one another among (pre)humans who had no contact with one another.

#

"We have an inability to distinguish truth from facts"

Please, define 'truth'.

Please, define 'fact'.
User avatar
WanderingLands
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:39 am
Contact:

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by WanderingLands »

henry quirk wrote:"I am contending that humans once had a metaphysical language...(m)etaphysical language is more prone to name processes than things...(m)etaphysical language uses words with only one possible meaning"

Problem with your notions: there's no evidence of a single root-language (from which humans drifted away) and lots of evidence that many languages developed independently of one another among (pre)humans who had no contact with one another.
That's not true, Henry. All languages are in fact interconnected, and it is because of many tribes and peoples having an interrelationship with one another. Like for example, the Afroasiatic languages, which is a family of African, Arabic, and Semitic languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroasiatic_languages

You can also look at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_languages

For something deeper than that, I have an online book that I've read that you can look at where there are similarities between Semitic (ie. Hebrew & Arabic) and Hindu culture, and they show linguistic similarities.

Abraham of India: http://www.guardiansofdarkness.com/GoD/jews.pdf

Excerpt:
Minoa (Ancient Greek nation). Meena (An Ancient Indian tribe)
Turbazu (Palestinian clan) Turvazu (An Ancient Indian tribe)
Kopt; Guptas (Ancient Egyptian dynasty) Gupta (Ancient Indian ruling dynasty)
Saracens (Ancient Turks) Sauresena (A territory & people of Ancient India)
Arabea (Arabs) Arabi (Original inhabitants of Makran, now part of Pakistan)
Mecca (Islam’s most sacred city.) Makka (Capital of Makran)
Islam (Mohammedan religion) Ishalayam (Temple of God)
Khurus (The tribe of Mohammed) Kurus (An Ancient Indian tribe)
Cabul (Town in Israel) Kabul (Capital of Afghanistan)
Jidda (Saudi Arabian city) Juddha, Yuddha (Warrior)
Bashan (Region of Jordan) Bazana; Vashana (Ancient capital of Gujarat)
Manesseh (Territory and tribe of Israel) Manasa (Himalayan lake, near Mount Meru)
Laish (City of Canaan) Laish (Town in Afghanistan)
Cutha (City in ancient S. Mesopotamia) Kuth; Cathia; Cutch (Part of Gujarat)
Yemen (Arab country) Yamuna (River of India)
Dubai (Nation of Arab Emirate) Dwab (Territory of ancient Afghanistan)
Sheba (Ancient Ethiopian kingdom) Siva; Sibi(Territory of ancient Yaudheyapura, India)
Syria (Home of the ancient Jews) Suriya (Mythical Indian territory)
Succoth (Place near Jordan and in Egypt) Sukhothai (Ancient Indian and Thai kingdom)
Talmud (Written Jewish teachings) Tal-Mudra (Sacred teachings written on palm leaves)
Kippot (Skullcap worn by Orthodox Jews) Kaparda (Hair top-knot)
Yehudi (Jewish People) Yutiya; Yah-Khuda (Name of an Indian tribe)
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by henry quirk »

Gonna have to work my way through the links and do a little research on my own.

Will get back to you, WL.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3346
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re:

Post by HexHammer »

henry quirk wrote:"You havn't understood a fucking thing"

Oh, I understand perfectly.

You're incapable of distinguishing between the 'thing' and 'the name of the thing'.

No wonder you believe "truth is...elusive, relative and subjective".

That ten towns share the same name means only that ten towns share the same consensually agreed-upon placeholder...the towns remain separate and distinct from one another, the existence of each is independent of the symbols used to signify any of them.

In the same way: a town having two different names (placeholders, symbols) does not render that town into two separate entities.

Bluntly: the symbol, name, placeholder is in your head and what that symbol, name, placeholder stands for (in our shared examples, a town) is outside your head and is independent of your head.

Truth (what is real, what is true) is not elusive or subjective; symbols and perspective often are.

Learn to tell the difference...or not...don't care either way.

*shrug*
LOL! You can't even relate to your own words.

Then tell me why tourists gets confused when you apparently don't?
Gee
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:22 am
Location: Michigan, US

Re:

Post by Gee »

henry quirk wrote: Truth (what is real, what is true) is not elusive or subjective; symbols and perspective often are.
Henry Quirk;

Take a look at what you wrote above and think about it. You state that truth is not elusive or subjective, but also insist that perspectives "often are".

It is true that there can be differing physical "perspectives", but it is also true that each person has their own subjective perspective, so subjectivity is also a perspective. Since we can never know the subjective reality of another person's mind, we can not know their truth, which is what makes subjective truth "elusive".

G
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by henry quirk »

Truth is what is real (objective).

Symbols and perspective are takes on what is real (subjective).

C'mon folks, this ain't that hard.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by henry quirk »

"Then tell me why tourists gets confused when you apparently don't?"

It's common to get symbols mixed up (or ascribe the wrong [not agreed-upon] symbol to a *thing)...again, not that hard to get.









*the thing doesn't much care what you call it...it exists independent of assessment or symbols
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 8493
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk »

Mebbe every one should pony up his or her definition for 'truth'.

Mine (stated a few times in-thread) seems at odds with some other folks' definition.

For example...

Gee, you write "we can not know their truth, which is what makes subjective truth "elusive"."

"their truth": if truth is, as I say, what is real, then there is no such animal as "their truth".

Instead what 'they' have is a perspective on what is real, what is true (on truth).

Bluntly: what you call "their truth" is really just 'their opinion'.

Example: Lil Jane was bit by a dog...Lill Jane now fears dogs...you might say Lil Jane's 'truth' is that dogs are bad...I say Lil Jane had a bad experience and now has a particular opinion extending out from that experience...'dogs are bad' is her perspective, not a fact (truth).

##

And: Hex, you're not disappointing me...you're true to form...too bad for you.
Last edited by henry quirk on Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3346
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Misconceiving Truth

Post by HexHammer »

henry quirk wrote:"Then tell me why tourists gets confused when you apparently don't?"

It's common to get symbols mixed up (or ascribe the wrong [not agreed-upon] symbol to a *thing)...again, not that hard to get.


*the thing doesn't much care what you call it...it exists independent of assessment or symbols
That's good, now you have actally admitted that it can be confuseing, thus they have misunderstood the truth.
User avatar
HexHammer
Posts: 3346
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 8:19 pm
Location: Denmark

Re:

Post by HexHammer »

henry quirk wrote:Mebbe every one should pony up his or her definition for 'truth'.

Mine (stated a few times in-thread) seems at odds with how some other folks' definition.
That would suggest that you are very intelligent to precisely define things, which you are not.

You speak your usual delusional words.
Post Reply