Just me
=
Does anyone know the truth?
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
Last edited by MJA on Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Jeffery Lyons
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:47 pm
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience and economy of explanation. But one can gain a greater understanding of how to distinguish between ones own opinions and knowledge, and what lies within ones own control, with Zeno of Citium’s theory of knowledge, which he taught using his hands to explain the various stages of acquiring knowledge:
Stage 1: Hand held wide open = IMPRESSIONS
Stage 2: Hand closes to form fist = ASSENT TO CONVICTION
Stage 3: Other hand grasps fist = KNOWLEDGE
Here is my somewhat modified version of Zeno’s Theory of Knowledge:
Stage 1: IMPRESSIONS: Everything we can possibly know is initially derived from impressions made on our senses—i.e. hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling. It is from these impressions our memories are built, which we recall as mental images, or appearances in the mind. In terms of memory, a newly born baby’s mind can be likened to a clean sheet of paper, ready to be written on.
Stage 2: ASSENT TO CONVICTION: This is where our reasoning faculty forms general notions, through recognising relationships and similarities between the impressions. But impressions have varying degrees of clarity. Some, such as good and bad, are strong and demand immediate assent, whereas others require deliberate reflection, and the notions formed from weak indistinct impressions—although they may be true—are at this stage, merely our own formed Opinions or Beliefs.
Stage 3: KNOWLEDGE: The impressions from which genuine knowledge is formed are clear and precise, and this knowledge (deductions, conclusions, understanding) cannot be removed, and can be confirmed and reinforced by further impressions. Kataleptike Phantasia is the ancient Greek name for the impressions that get a firm grip on reality—In other words, the numerous events you can clearly recall that have resulted in genuine knowledge.
Stage 1: Hand held wide open = IMPRESSIONS
Stage 2: Hand closes to form fist = ASSENT TO CONVICTION
Stage 3: Other hand grasps fist = KNOWLEDGE
Here is my somewhat modified version of Zeno’s Theory of Knowledge:
Stage 1: IMPRESSIONS: Everything we can possibly know is initially derived from impressions made on our senses—i.e. hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling. It is from these impressions our memories are built, which we recall as mental images, or appearances in the mind. In terms of memory, a newly born baby’s mind can be likened to a clean sheet of paper, ready to be written on.
Stage 2: ASSENT TO CONVICTION: This is where our reasoning faculty forms general notions, through recognising relationships and similarities between the impressions. But impressions have varying degrees of clarity. Some, such as good and bad, are strong and demand immediate assent, whereas others require deliberate reflection, and the notions formed from weak indistinct impressions—although they may be true—are at this stage, merely our own formed Opinions or Beliefs.
Stage 3: KNOWLEDGE: The impressions from which genuine knowledge is formed are clear and precise, and this knowledge (deductions, conclusions, understanding) cannot be removed, and can be confirmed and reinforced by further impressions. Kataleptike Phantasia is the ancient Greek name for the impressions that get a firm grip on reality—In other words, the numerous events you can clearly recall that have resulted in genuine knowledge.
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
>The biggest factor is repeat-ability. That is what the scientific method is all about.
That's also what the other way of knowing is about, logic. As long as things keep happening the same way, as long as the same input produces the same output, that's as certain as we can be of anything. Science is rigor. Math and logic are rigor of a different sort.
>Most of what we know and believe was put together in our brains as infants, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting the world. These are our base experiences that we have learned through a great deal of repeated experience. That we can communicate with each other, and come to an agreement about most of reality only confirms our perspectives of reality. There are always subtle differences in our perspectives of the world, but there is enough to agree upon. We further test our perspectives of reality through games and sports, and our overall ability to make things happen.
There, you've hit on two move very good points, each of which is True ( tiny.cc/TheWholeStory bolsters both points ). On the Truth side ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/, epistemology and metaphysics ) is solved by taking your first point about replication to it's logical extreme and the Spiritual side is solved by understanding the value of salience, perspective, and one you forgot - priority. Each answer in that realm is contingent. Reality is our consensus experience. Actuality is that which is beyond - transcendent; inaccessible.
>Then we encounter more subjective things, taste in music, art, literature, philosophy, religion, abstract thought. When we communicate these things, we find far greater interpretations of reality. These abstract concepts can not be easily tested in the physical world. Mainly we share our perspectives through discussions and debates, such as these forums.
From another perspective there are three layers of filter between us and Actuality, namely biological (eyes, etc.), cultural (the subconscious, basically), and psychological (the story we tell ourselves about ourselves).
>Then there are those things we can not confirm through repeat-ability. Rumor, myth, events and observations of phenomenon encountered by normal rational people, by all accounts, except for the experiences that no one else can confirm to exist. These experiences can be any number of well known things, from a dream where we feel that we are encountering something real that exists at a higher plane of existence, to clairvoyance and telepathy, sightings of UFOs and aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, spirits, dejavu. These are experiences few people ever claim to have witnessed.
Just going to drop this here:
universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
0 ignorance (certainty that you don't know)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)
>What is repeatable, and widely known, we designate as fact. What is subjective we leave to opinion. Unusual phenomenon is is viewed with widely varying opinion.
In order to take this idea to it's logical extreme to test it's viability, you have to say that the more replicable something is, the more real it is, which is a problem-free answer to all such questions as far as i can tell.
>The thing is, that the unusual, the unproven, phenomenon, myths, create speculation, claimed by many to support abstract beliefs, philosophy, art, religion. Much of this has a long history, it captures the imagination, entertains. A great deal of the most popular tales are also the least credible. Some of these beliefs have a very profound impact on culture, justice, law and order, society. Often, at the very least these tales are cautionary tales that express ideas and concerns that for what ever reason can not be put in more concrete terms. Even a great deal of science includes concepts that are primarily straight out of imagination, unproven, many concepts, unwitnessed by anyone, simply conjectures based on speculation of phenomenon observed through scientific experimentation, and examination of artifacts.
Popular wisdom survives because a) it's mundane enough that everyone sees themselves reflected in it b) it's interpretable enough that anyone can make it mean whatever they want. Typical wisdom that lasts lasts because it's common, not because it's special.
>When we ask about the truth, the complete truth, these phenomenon are considered by many. Some people dismiss phenomenon outright, others believe completely, and those in the middle choose to keep things open.
It's simple really. Is there replicable evidence of it? If not, it's indistinguishable from fiction and, short of additional evidence, only a fool will take it seriously, whether god or homeopathy. They're pragmatically identical. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind by finding necessary truths and thereafter insisting upon them.
>It is important because these things have very significant impact on moral considerations of what is right or wrong.
Questions of right and wrong are spiritual ones, subject to the three contingencies listed above.
>Is there such a thing as God, life after death? Is religion important? Is science important? Is there such a thing as morality, right or wrong? Does life have meaning?
As a concept, yes, as a testable thing, no.
If there's anything else, you're not dead.
Yes, in the sense that it has major impacts on the world. No in the sense that there's nothing religion provides that isn't available in other ways without the bullshit.
Yes, because it's the best way of understanding material reality, and we are all materially embodied beings.
Yes, but it depends on your desired objectives. To the extent we agree (survival, freedom, etc.), that's what's typically understood as morality.
The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves.
If you'd like, i can show you how to derive each of those answers from the three points you made initially here. Hit me up.
>Our personal philosophy, our individual perspective of the truth, is how each of us determines these things for ourselves.
It's subjective but not arbitrary. Depending on the desired result, some ways of thinking clearly lead to better outcomes than others. The truth can be known, even contingent truth.
That's also what the other way of knowing is about, logic. As long as things keep happening the same way, as long as the same input produces the same output, that's as certain as we can be of anything. Science is rigor. Math and logic are rigor of a different sort.
>Most of what we know and believe was put together in our brains as infants, seeing, hearing, touching, tasting the world. These are our base experiences that we have learned through a great deal of repeated experience. That we can communicate with each other, and come to an agreement about most of reality only confirms our perspectives of reality. There are always subtle differences in our perspectives of the world, but there is enough to agree upon. We further test our perspectives of reality through games and sports, and our overall ability to make things happen.
There, you've hit on two move very good points, each of which is True ( tiny.cc/TheWholeStory bolsters both points ). On the Truth side ( https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/, epistemology and metaphysics ) is solved by taking your first point about replication to it's logical extreme and the Spiritual side is solved by understanding the value of salience, perspective, and one you forgot - priority. Each answer in that realm is contingent. Reality is our consensus experience. Actuality is that which is beyond - transcendent; inaccessible.
>Then we encounter more subjective things, taste in music, art, literature, philosophy, religion, abstract thought. When we communicate these things, we find far greater interpretations of reality. These abstract concepts can not be easily tested in the physical world. Mainly we share our perspectives through discussions and debates, such as these forums.
From another perspective there are three layers of filter between us and Actuality, namely biological (eyes, etc.), cultural (the subconscious, basically), and psychological (the story we tell ourselves about ourselves).
>Then there are those things we can not confirm through repeat-ability. Rumor, myth, events and observations of phenomenon encountered by normal rational people, by all accounts, except for the experiences that no one else can confirm to exist. These experiences can be any number of well known things, from a dream where we feel that we are encountering something real that exists at a higher plane of existence, to clairvoyance and telepathy, sightings of UFOs and aliens, bigfoot, ghosts, spirits, dejavu. These are experiences few people ever claim to have witnessed.
Just going to drop this here:
universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
0 ignorance (certainty that you don't know)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
4 experience of (possible illusion or delusion)
5 ground truth (consensus Reality)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise, "best practice")
8 science (rigorous replication)
-=empirical probability / logical necessity=-
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math (semantic, absolute)
10 experience qua experience (you are definitely sensing this)
>What is repeatable, and widely known, we designate as fact. What is subjective we leave to opinion. Unusual phenomenon is is viewed with widely varying opinion.
In order to take this idea to it's logical extreme to test it's viability, you have to say that the more replicable something is, the more real it is, which is a problem-free answer to all such questions as far as i can tell.
>The thing is, that the unusual, the unproven, phenomenon, myths, create speculation, claimed by many to support abstract beliefs, philosophy, art, religion. Much of this has a long history, it captures the imagination, entertains. A great deal of the most popular tales are also the least credible. Some of these beliefs have a very profound impact on culture, justice, law and order, society. Often, at the very least these tales are cautionary tales that express ideas and concerns that for what ever reason can not be put in more concrete terms. Even a great deal of science includes concepts that are primarily straight out of imagination, unproven, many concepts, unwitnessed by anyone, simply conjectures based on speculation of phenomenon observed through scientific experimentation, and examination of artifacts.
Popular wisdom survives because a) it's mundane enough that everyone sees themselves reflected in it b) it's interpretable enough that anyone can make it mean whatever they want. Typical wisdom that lasts lasts because it's common, not because it's special.
>When we ask about the truth, the complete truth, these phenomenon are considered by many. Some people dismiss phenomenon outright, others believe completely, and those in the middle choose to keep things open.
It's simple really. Is there replicable evidence of it? If not, it's indistinguishable from fiction and, short of additional evidence, only a fool will take it seriously, whether god or homeopathy. They're pragmatically identical. Intellectual maturity is the process of Closing your mind by finding necessary truths and thereafter insisting upon them.
>It is important because these things have very significant impact on moral considerations of what is right or wrong.
Questions of right and wrong are spiritual ones, subject to the three contingencies listed above.
>Is there such a thing as God, life after death? Is religion important? Is science important? Is there such a thing as morality, right or wrong? Does life have meaning?
As a concept, yes, as a testable thing, no.
If there's anything else, you're not dead.
Yes, in the sense that it has major impacts on the world. No in the sense that there's nothing religion provides that isn't available in other ways without the bullshit.
Yes, because it's the best way of understanding material reality, and we are all materially embodied beings.
Yes, but it depends on your desired objectives. To the extent we agree (survival, freedom, etc.), that's what's typically understood as morality.
The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves.
If you'd like, i can show you how to derive each of those answers from the three points you made initially here. Hit me up.
>Our personal philosophy, our individual perspective of the truth, is how each of us determines these things for ourselves.
It's subjective but not arbitrary. Depending on the desired result, some ways of thinking clearly lead to better outcomes than others. The truth can be known, even contingent truth.
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
[quote=poet1b post_id=103606 time=1332276592 user_id=7341]
Something else that has come up.
Language is not our only means of communication for expressing our perspective of the truth. We can also communicate by example, and this is in fact the most powerful means of proving ones point, the accuracy of one's perspective of the truth.
I argue that there is truth, but each of us only has a piece of the truth, which comes from our perspective of reality, our own unique way of identifying that which is true. Those who succeed in developing a better perspective of the truth are often capable of demonstrating their superior angle on the truth through example, through succeeding where others fail, and that is our greatest method for identifying the truth, in our current shared world view most often through the scientific process.
From a philosophical point of view, the idea is to take an approach that is effective in the physical world.
[/quote]
It's useful to think of truth as Reality + perspective, where reality is our consensus experience. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, so no two ways of understanding are equivalently useful. There is a best version and it's at tiny.cc/TheWholeStory.
Something else that has come up.
Language is not our only means of communication for expressing our perspective of the truth. We can also communicate by example, and this is in fact the most powerful means of proving ones point, the accuracy of one's perspective of the truth.
I argue that there is truth, but each of us only has a piece of the truth, which comes from our perspective of reality, our own unique way of identifying that which is true. Those who succeed in developing a better perspective of the truth are often capable of demonstrating their superior angle on the truth through example, through succeeding where others fail, and that is our greatest method for identifying the truth, in our current shared world view most often through the scientific process.
From a philosophical point of view, the idea is to take an approach that is effective in the physical world.
[/quote]
It's useful to think of truth as Reality + perspective, where reality is our consensus experience. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty, so no two ways of understanding are equivalently useful. There is a best version and it's at tiny.cc/TheWholeStory.
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
[quote=Hanuman post_id=103693 time=1332334528 user_id=6928]
I believe the main way we “learn about our world” is through an internal process of reasoning based on previous experience, preferences, prejudices, drive, and mental capacity. Our data sources are experience, observation, or what others tell us, which should not be confused with learning. But, I believe the processing of this data from all three streams is just as important as the other.
- Some people learn from their mistakes (experiences), while others are doomed to repeat it.
- Some people observe others do dumb things, and refrain, while others don’t.
- Some people believe every word anyone tells them, while others do not.
[/quote]
Wisdom comes from perspective and perspective comes from experience.
I believe the main way we “learn about our world” is through an internal process of reasoning based on previous experience, preferences, prejudices, drive, and mental capacity. Our data sources are experience, observation, or what others tell us, which should not be confused with learning. But, I believe the processing of this data from all three streams is just as important as the other.
- Some people learn from their mistakes (experiences), while others are doomed to repeat it.
- Some people observe others do dumb things, and refrain, while others don’t.
- Some people believe every word anyone tells them, while others do not.
[/quote]
Wisdom comes from perspective and perspective comes from experience.
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
[quote=LuvPimpinYou post_id=109199 time=1339002351 user_id=7614]
Everything we know is a truth, until proven otherwise ;)
[/quote]
Knowledge is justifiable belief, but everything most people Think they know is indistinguishable from fiction because they cannot show a rational chain of evidence.
Everything we know is a truth, until proven otherwise ;)
[/quote]
Knowledge is justifiable belief, but everything most people Think they know is indistinguishable from fiction because they cannot show a rational chain of evidence.
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
[quote="Jeffery Lyons" post_id=113791 time=1343923168 user_id=7975]
The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience and economy of explanation.
I would add several other criteria to that, which are included in tiny.cc/TheWholeStory and for which i'd like your opinion with regard to the statement above ( minus any comments about it's current formatting, please :P ).
But one can gain a greater understanding of how to distinguish between ones own opinions and knowledge, and what lies within ones own control, with Zeno of Citium’s theory of knowledge, which he taught using his hands to explain the various stages of acquiring knowledge:
Stage 1: Hand held wide open = IMPRESSIONS
"opinion"?
Stage 2: Hand closes to form fist = ASSENT TO CONVICTION
"belief"?
Stage 3: Other hand grasps fist = KNOWLEDGE
"knowledge"!
>Stage 1: IMPRESSIONS: Everything we can possibly know is initially derived from impressions made on our senses—i.e. hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling. It is from these impressions our memories are built, which we recall as mental images, or appearances in the mind. In terms of memory, a newly born baby’s mind can be likened to a clean sheet of paper, ready to be written on.
Data
>Stage 2: ASSENT TO CONVICTION: This is where our reasoning faculty forms general notions, through recognising relationships and similarities between the impressions. But impressions have varying degrees of clarity. Some, such as good and bad, are strong and demand immediate assent, whereas others require deliberate reflection, and the notions formed from weak indistinct impressions—although they may be true—are at this stage, merely our own formed Opinions or Beliefs.
Information
Stage 3: KNOWLEDGE: The impressions from which genuine knowledge is formed are clear and precise, and this knowledge (deductions, conclusions, understanding) cannot be removed, and can be confirmed and reinforced by further impressions. Kataleptike Phantasia is the ancient Greek name for the impressions that get a firm grip on reality—In other words, the numerous events you can clearly recall that have resulted in genuine knowledge.
Understanding
The tests of truth are logical consistency, agreement with experience and economy of explanation.
I would add several other criteria to that, which are included in tiny.cc/TheWholeStory and for which i'd like your opinion with regard to the statement above ( minus any comments about it's current formatting, please :P ).
But one can gain a greater understanding of how to distinguish between ones own opinions and knowledge, and what lies within ones own control, with Zeno of Citium’s theory of knowledge, which he taught using his hands to explain the various stages of acquiring knowledge:
Stage 1: Hand held wide open = IMPRESSIONS
"opinion"?
Stage 2: Hand closes to form fist = ASSENT TO CONVICTION
"belief"?
Stage 3: Other hand grasps fist = KNOWLEDGE
"knowledge"!
>Stage 1: IMPRESSIONS: Everything we can possibly know is initially derived from impressions made on our senses—i.e. hearing, seeing, touching, tasting and smelling. It is from these impressions our memories are built, which we recall as mental images, or appearances in the mind. In terms of memory, a newly born baby’s mind can be likened to a clean sheet of paper, ready to be written on.
Data
>Stage 2: ASSENT TO CONVICTION: This is where our reasoning faculty forms general notions, through recognising relationships and similarities between the impressions. But impressions have varying degrees of clarity. Some, such as good and bad, are strong and demand immediate assent, whereas others require deliberate reflection, and the notions formed from weak indistinct impressions—although they may be true—are at this stage, merely our own formed Opinions or Beliefs.
Information
Stage 3: KNOWLEDGE: The impressions from which genuine knowledge is formed are clear and precise, and this knowledge (deductions, conclusions, understanding) cannot be removed, and can be confirmed and reinforced by further impressions. Kataleptike Phantasia is the ancient Greek name for the impressions that get a firm grip on reality—In other words, the numerous events you can clearly recall that have resulted in genuine knowledge.
Understanding
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
The issue is though... that events are only "relatively" repeatable...
Its simply not possible to repeat anything with 100% accuracy - meaning: every experience is unique, never to be repeated, no matter how "similar" it might look to conceptual thought.
Whatever is real (and as such absolutely true) is none repeatable.
Whatever is only relatively true is also (relatively) repeatable.
All discussions and further attempts of definition are as such about relative truths (absolute truth cannot be limited and every attempt to define it will never be it).
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
[quote=AlexW post_id=474822 time=1602210536 user_id=15862]
[quote=poet1b post_id=103462 time=1332190328 user_id=7341]
There are very specific ways that we establish what is true, what is real.
The biggest factor is repeat-ability.
[/quote]
The issue is though... that events are only "relatively" repeatable...
Its simply not possible to repeat anything with 100% accuracy - meaning: every experience is unique, never to be repeated, no matter how "similar" it might look to conceptual thought.
Whatever is real (and as such absolutely true) is none repeatable.
Whatever is only relatively true is also (relatively) repeatable.
All discussions and further attempts of definition are as such about relative truths (absolute truth cannot be limited and every attempt to define it will never be it).
[/quote]
This is why the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty - sure Enough, for all intents and purposes. Absolute truth is accessible through logic, which describes relationships between things. 1+1 always equals 2, despite being contingent upon how we differentiate between things.
[quote=poet1b post_id=103462 time=1332190328 user_id=7341]
There are very specific ways that we establish what is true, what is real.
The biggest factor is repeat-ability.
[/quote]
The issue is though... that events are only "relatively" repeatable...
Its simply not possible to repeat anything with 100% accuracy - meaning: every experience is unique, never to be repeated, no matter how "similar" it might look to conceptual thought.
Whatever is real (and as such absolutely true) is none repeatable.
Whatever is only relatively true is also (relatively) repeatable.
All discussions and further attempts of definition are as such about relative truths (absolute truth cannot be limited and every attempt to define it will never be it).
[/quote]
This is why the purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is actionable certainty - sure Enough, for all intents and purposes. Absolute truth is accessible through logic, which describes relationships between things. 1+1 always equals 2, despite being contingent upon how we differentiate between things.
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
I wouldn’t call that absolute truth. If a truth depends on something, eg the existence of separate things, then it is still relative, not absolute.
Re: Does anyone know the truth?
[quote=AlexW post_id=474850 time=1602221813 user_id=15862]
[quote=Advocate post_id=474824 time=1602210730 user_id=15238]
Absolute truth is accessible through logic, which describes relationships between things. 1+1 always equals 2, despite being contingent upon how we differentiate between things.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call that absolute truth. If a truth depends on something, eg the existence of separate things, then it is still relative, not absolute.
[/quote]
It's true to the extent separate things exist, which is sufficient for all intents and purposes to minds because minds always differentiate.
[quote=Advocate post_id=474824 time=1602210730 user_id=15238]
Absolute truth is accessible through logic, which describes relationships between things. 1+1 always equals 2, despite being contingent upon how we differentiate between things.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t call that absolute truth. If a truth depends on something, eg the existence of separate things, then it is still relative, not absolute.
[/quote]
It's true to the extent separate things exist, which is sufficient for all intents and purposes to minds because minds always differentiate.