Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: Buster_Brown]
    #26158779 -

the truth, or statement of fact, always pertains to a defined set.
eg.
All small crow-like black birds which are smaller than crows found in Canada are starlings.
this may not be true outside of the references (i.e. white versus black, USA vs. Canada hummingbird-like instead of crow-like)

the framework is the reference of scope and detail, and the more fully the reference is described, the more dependable the truth statement can be.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26159016 -

DividedQuantum said:
If there were no such real thing as truth, nothing we say in this thread can have any meaning. Whether you want to assert the truth, or deny it, if it didn't exist you couldn't meaningfully do either. So we're either simpering and muttering incoherently, or there are knowable truths toward which we are pointing. Imo, language is not superfluous.


I'm not sure about that. I look at it something like this; those truths that language attempts to elucidate don't seem knowable (although they may exist independently but we can't be certain), what's outside that can't really consist of more than one thing or at least multiplicity within one thing and might be considered truth and it may or may not be "knowable".


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: Grapefruit]
    #26159229 -

I don't follow. My point is that if the truth doesn't exist, how can we say the truth doesn't exist? If it can't possibly be true?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26159326 -

Basically I think perhaps we agree but I'm just trying to add something to that.

I'm saying that perhaps truth exists but that if it does I don't think it can consist of facts or ideas, I'm not even sure if those facts and ideas could even possibly be consistent within reality and we certainly wouldn't be able to ever know it for sure if they were. Not to say that facts and ideas are not pointing at anything and they don't serve practical purpose, just that they can never be truth with a capital T.

I think if it exists it's something that you can never really pin down. Truth could even consist of seemingly contradictory things. There's probably nothing consistent about it. Truth is a living thing and either you're there and living it or you're not, you see and know it or you don't, it's something happening now..


--------------------
Little left in the way of energy; or the way of love, yet happy to entertain myself playing mental games with the rest of you freaks until the rivers run backwards. 

"Chat your fraff
Chat your fraff
Just chat your fraff
Chat your fraff"

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: Grapefruit]
    #26159932 -

I can agree with that. It reminds me of the saying of Niels Bohr, who said that the opposite of a great truth is another great truth.

I think reality is like an onion. So you peel back a layer, and there's a deeper layer. There is a deeper layer beneath that, and on and on. I don't subscribe to the notion that physics will arrive at the "theory of everything" -- one equation that explains literally everything. I think physicists around the universe will have work forever. So in that sense, the truth exists, but its nature is infinite.


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26160142 -

Absolute truth, or Truth qua Truth, is a tautology (and this is true of all abstract concepts when they are said to be a function of themselves), which makes it a contradiction, which means that there is no such thing as absolute truth, which means that all truth then is subject to a reference; and this fact makes truth subjective.

Which means that truth then, and obviously, cannot be objective.  On the other hand, the thing which IS objective is truth’s reference.

So…what is the reference?

Well, truth’s reference is he who is asking the question–what, how, why, which, where, etc.. Put another way, it is the Osberver; or, he who is perceiving and then conceptualizing the distinction between himself and NOT himself–or I vs. Environment. This frame of reference then, the frame of reference of I, the Observer, of Self who Perceives from the absolute ontological place of Me, is going to be the epistemological primary; the irreducible reference for defining the Truth of what he observes.

Without this primary, you simply cannot have truth. But it’s more than simply having it, the epistemological primary must be defined reasonably.  That is, he who claims to apprehend, to have or know truth, must be defined without contradiction; without indecision; without subjective or rationally unverifiable claims. Without this epistemological primary, defined according to unyielding rational consistency, there can be nothing which is True.

And, naturally, nothing which is false.


--------------------

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: Loaded Shaman]
    #26160245 -

Then just say truth and it’s not a tautology..

The reference is I vs environment?

Quote:
This frame of reference then, the frame of reference of I, the Observer, of Self who Perceives from the absolute ontological place of Me, is going to be the epistemological primary; the irreducible reference for defining the Truth of what he observes.


This means absolutely nothing U gosh darn potato.

Photosynthesis is a Chinese hoax! :protest:


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: Morel Guy] * 1
    #26165064 -

I don't think it's so much a problem of truth, but moreso a problem with people.  The truth is what it is.  Truth is reality.  Truth doesn't require any person to believe in it.  Truth stands alone.  Are people able to ascertain what the truth is? I think this question is more poignant.

Many people don't care what the truth is and are not making a sincere intellectual attempt to find the truth.  For many, beliefs are more important than truth.  What they feel or think the truth may be is more important than the actual truth.  Sometimes, a truth is simply beyond us.  There are truths we can't ascertain today because we lack the technological prowess to answer those. Other truths are lost to the sands of time.  There are many ancient mysterious that really can't be conclusively solved unless we were there to see it first hand. 

I think we should sincerely search for the truth as much as possible while also realizing it will be impossible to always arrive at what the truth may be.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: Shikamaru]
    #26165075 -

"truth" -- objective truth requires measurement. ratiocination is universal. what is empirical is real qua conception, but cannot be universal without the text, however, and is contingent on it -- seeing as we don't all share the same sense organs, q.e.d.

eg, sans that contingency, we have no trace of truth beyond our senses & reason- & because ratiocination transcends perception [even 𝑚𝑢̄𝑡𝑎̄𝑡𝑖̄𝑠 𝑚𝑢̄𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖̄𝑠 recording empirical data] viz. the reasoning mind's [as opposed to the mere "sentience" of] direct experience.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: akira_akuma]
    #26165312 -

Do you think it is possible to perceive truths above and beyond reason? For example, on certain strong psychedelics, under the right circumstances, we can perceive truths that are not ordinarily available to the rational mind, but they can be true nonetheless. There are plenty of non-ordinary states to which this notion applies. Do you not find this to be the case?


--------------------
Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26165432 -

yes.

i believe they have to do with similar communication we make in dreams.

however...these 'flashes' of light, insights [thru inward sound], seem to be connected to the Schumann Resonance, and Gamma [& Hyper-Gamma] brainwave frequencies (whereas dreams are more associated with Delta and Theta brainwave states) - also what might be involved are what is called 'cryptochrome'.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: DividedQuantum] * 1
    #26166191 -

DividedQuantum said:
Do you think it is possible to perceive truths above and beyond reason? For example, on certain strong psychedelics, under the right circumstances, we can perceive truths that are not ordinarily available to the rational mind, but they can be true nonetheless. There are plenty of non-ordinary states to which this notion applies. Do you not find this to be the case?


At that point I'd argue reason is the only way; you're just sharpening said ability to reason on a higher level of conscious awareness than your usual daily consciousness.

If you're piecing together logic, you're using reason, whether you're intoxicated or not.

Different states = different levels of ability to use reason and logic. Perceptual expansion leads to more reasoning ability; more input data with less of a BS filter.


--------------------

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: DividedQuantum]
    #26166284 -

DividedQuantum said:
Do you think it is possible to perceive truths above and beyond reason? For example, on certain strong psychedelics, under the right circumstances, we can perceive truths that are not ordinarily available to the rational mind, but they can be true nonetheless. There are plenty of non-ordinary states to which this notion applies. Do you not find this to be the case?


No.

I think is possible to perceive aspects of something that is real.
I think interpretations of experience are often beyond reason.

Availability to the rational mind seems to always be there; changing the angle of approach happens in a myriad of ways.

To take seriously such experiences seems fine, but too often is it (in my view) that such experiences are taken literally, and that fatal misunderstandings are enshrined.

I know someone who’s convinced they saw a white Tesla spaceship capable of holding 20 passengers slow down before them while shining a spotlight at them before flying off again.

How am I to take this?


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: akira_akuma]
    #26166361 -

akira_akuma said:
yes.

i believe they have to do with similar communication we make in dreams.

however...these 'flashes' of light, insights [thru inward sound], seem to be connected to the Schumann Resonance, and Gamma [& Hyper-Gamma] brainwave frequencies (whereas dreams are more associated with Delta and Theta brainwave states) - also what might be involved are what is called 'cryptochrome'.



it's a good thing that we can block copy and block quote, because this type of word salad sample is a perfect example of god knows what.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: redgreenvines]
    #26166517 -

oh look another unlearned post by...well, you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: akira_akuma]
    #26166883 -

aint it the truth!


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: akira_akuma]
    #26168127 -

While it has been acknowledged that exposure to low-frequency, low-intensity electromagnetic fields can produce biological effects, the possible dynamics of electromagnetic activity affecting physiology, psychology, and behavior is still unknown.

Essentially it isn’t known what, if anything ambient magnetic fields do.

Quote:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656447/


Associating this with brainwave frequencies is speculation at best.

Again, associating cryptochromes with human dreaming or insight is highly speculative. 

Quote:
There's also been evidence in recent years that, in birds, the cryptochromes in their eyes are responsible for their ability to orient themselves by detecting magnetic fields, a sense called magnetoreception.


This is a fine example of why I’m of the impression we can perceive aspects of something that is real, yet still fall under some form of misinterpretation or outright speculation when elements are taken too literally.


--------------------
I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: sudly]
    #26171400 -

i'll posit something of a exegesis from my own findings [for this thread]

Some claim that science is the ne plus ultra in the education of human affairs at large, and that what follows is that empiricism is the sine qua non of scientific endeavor. This is the imp of nu-scientism. Truly, and insuperably, the notion follows suit, that it is not empiricism which is sine qua non to science [however of import it may be], but that instead the sine non qua to science is ratiocination, per se. Indeed, science is driven by predilections. Nothing more. This is the sina qua non of science. To be driven by predilection for further discovery. Ratiocination is universal. What is empirical is real qua conception, but 'cannot be universal without the text', however, and is contingent on it [, hence is is absurd], seeing as we don't all share the same sense organs, q.e.d. (Eg, sans that contingency, we have no trace of truth beyond our senses & reason- & because ratiocination transcends perception [even 𝑚𝑢̄𝑡𝑎̄𝑡𝑖̄𝑠 𝑚𝑢̄𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖̄𝑠 in recording empirical data] viz. the reasoning mind's [as opposed to the mere "sentience" of] direct experience.)

Notes [and responses] From An Exposition On Memetic Advantage:

"There is no objective truth until we can assess numbers as the building blocks of consciousness, or something furthermore. Can't have an objective truth without an objective system of measurement. Truth is subjective (as far as I can assess via the most logical means available in epistemology). Absolute truth is multifarious. Memetics proves this. Before a certain repulse factor is reached, anything that garners memetic advantage is infected unless met with resistance- in a figurative fashion, we can see that the truth is not able to be accessed in a objective way, and only a subjective way- or lest bring me the numbers."

That is, there cannot be an "objective truth", per se, without it being agglomerated in a measurable form, which can only be done in partiality, in lieu of what is A: objectively known and B: what is politically/philosophical solvent- ie, because of the nature of society itself, and it's adherents, what is "done" needs be met with "resistance" via the psychological compounding of society [such as it is currently], and then succeeding that, displacement of members in that society [in-group/out-group structural capacities, and organization], yes, via "class", but not so much just class, but culture [the bane of the Marxian], as well [and race, color, and creed].

Basically, it comes down to this: "A meme must be met with proper resistance, lest the meme self-amalgamates (becomes self-aware) and takes over; loosing a meme in this way leads to the process of hyperneutralization, mirroring principals become one until separation."

Because society structures itself around culture [and not economics, not unless we were under Communism], it looses these forces upon itself, and strictly speaking, "intermixed" & intermingled democracy [ie, any kind of voting system; the "demos" being the orientation of any democracy, even a representative republic] becomes a hodgepodge of "perceived social iniquities", until things "roll over", and the culture neutralizes [assimilates, dresses-down, or deracinated] the "perceived iniquity".

"All it takes is one thing, one thing only: to set up a Memetic Repulse Factor to a quality of 0, to pertain to an adynamic order- this order can, and will be attempted to be forced into existence by 'Memetic Advantage'- once at 0, due to the 'feedback repulsion', those taken in will fall like chickens into the gaze of a chalk line, willingly co-opted."

PS: Of course empiricism is the next, in import, because in tandem, ratiocination and empiricism, we get the modern scientific method- however- the elentic method of Socrates is, literally, the advent of the future of modern science [as is well accepted, and as been for a long time], and this method precedes the empirical method. But not only that, but I think I conclusively show how ratiocination precedes empiricism.

PPS: regarding cryptochromes, one should research their effects regarding circadian rhythms; and cryptochromes' effects on the Schumann Resonance field by means of quantum entanglement.

Edited by akira_akuma (09/06/19 10:45 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: akira_akuma]
    #26171407 -

We all seek truth, and for that we are eternally dissatisfied when it eludes us.

But we can't help but look for it.

For me, the only truth that has been revealed to me is that most of what you perceive is illusory, most of what you think you know you don't, and most of what you think will make you happy won't.

Oh, and “Remember! Reality's an illusion, the universe is a hologram, buy gold! Byeeee!”-Bill Cipher



--------------------
"Think about the universe for a moment.
With peyote, you need to expand.
In the fire, everything exists.
It's the record of the universe.
So, through the imagination, the thoughts,
messages begin to come to you.
The sacred shimmering heart."
-Kuauhtli Vasquez

:peyotl:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The problem with Truth. [Re: teonanacatl83] * 1
    #26171773 -

Which then begs the question(s): An illusion of what? An illusion for whom?

I think the closest we can get to "true" is working with concepts and definitions that don't contradict one another, I.E. using reason as a guide.

I.E. if someone claims they can draw a circular square, you know they're full of shit (or high as fuck).

Two mutually exclusive things claimed as one = bullshit. It's not so much actively seeking what's "true" vs allowing what's false (not true) to be recognized. Repeat the pattern.

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."


--------------------

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance." — Confucius

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Truth about the Buddha..
( 1 2 all )		 lucid 3,340 36 12/01/03 04:06 AM
by castaway
* Truth in the Ontological Argument or Syntax Games chemkid 1,354 13 12/25/03 10:21 AM
by Anonymous
* Australian aboriginals
( 1 2 all )		 missulena 3,049 29 01/14/02 01:30 AM
by MagicRooms
* Logical Problem
( 1 2 3 all )		 Anonymous 4,430 51 01/21/04 10:26 PM
by Frog
* What is the truth behind Disney? tekramrepus 2,470 18 06/20/03 06:58 AM
by champ
* "Freewill problem" check
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 buttonion 18,981 152 04/22/07 10:13 PM
by Phred
* The Four Noble Truths MiddlemanM 1,328 6 06/03/02 09:47 PM
by Swami
* Truth?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )		 Anonymous 17,702 205 10/21/02 02:08 PM
by Anonymous

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,233 topic views. 1 members, 595 guests and 58 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.