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

PlanetSpores.ca
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!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Re: Objective Truth [Re: psychomime]
    #4657048 -

Dang, psychomime, I had advised you to do a forum search and bump an existing thread on the same topic, but the very thorough thread on objective morality from a year ago I was thinking of has been archived. This means it can't be bumped though of course it can still be read. You'll find it here --

http://www.shroomery.org/archives/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/3079426/page//fpart/1/vc/1



Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Ravus]
    #4657063 -

Quote:
Do you believe objective truth can coexist with the possibility that it is not true, such as if solipsism was indeed correct?


Care to rephrase that? I'm unsure what you are asking.

Quote:
Truth itself cannot coexist without being verified...


Incorrect. It is true that iron at a given temperature and pressure will turn from its solid form to its liquid form. That truth remains a truth whether there is anyone around to verify it or not.

Quote:
...and objective truth cannot be verified...


Incorrect. We can for example verify that iron at a given temperature and pressure will turn from its solid form to its liquid form.

Quote:
...so the thought that objective truth exists is just as untestable as the thought that objective truth doesn't exist, as supported by solipsism.


Since the first two links in your chain are incorrect, your conclusion is likewise incorrect.



Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Phred]
    #4657112 -

Quote:
Quote:
Do you believe objective truth can coexist with the possibility that it is not true, such as if solipsism was indeed correct?


Care to rephrase that? I'm unsure what you are asking.



Say reality only existed within your internal brain, and though there was something outside of your brain, it was so vastly different from your internal interpretation of the external signals that the external world could not even be verified. You are one subjective human being, interpreting reality through your perception and logic, but there is always the possibility that your interpretations are not only subjective, but flat-out wrong compared to the actual external nature.

We cannot verify the external nature, because all verifications occur using our perception and our logic. Science revolves around making experiments and observing the results, but observations rely on perception, which is subjective. You can't verify that a color you're seeing is interpreted the same way by someone else, or that an emotion you're feeling is felt by someone else. They can tell you they feel it, but you can never actually verify it, because you're trapped in one subjective point of view.

Therefore, the possiblity exists that this point of view is not an objective truth, but simply a subjective, relative truth. We can't go outside of our single point of view and verify that objective truth exists in the outer universe, because the only way we can verify it is by perceiving it, thinking about it, and therefore making it part of our subjective mind. It is impossible to tell the difference between something objective and something subjective, because both are perceived and incorporated subjectively, allowing for the possibility that everything is subjective.

With the possibility that truth is just a relative interpretation, and the lack of an ability to go outside one's single point of view and verify it from any other point of view, doesn't the simple possibility compromise any absolute or objective truth?


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Ravus]
    #4657164 -

objective truth is an oxymoron, period

truth is subjective in nature,

subjects are the language of perception.

sady, perception is also subjective and therefore subject to mutation in many forms.

thats right i said it.

so what do you do? why do you even bother?

to fulfill the object of truth? presumably yes.

but nobody probably understands what the hell i mean.

if you do, then you know what i mean, don't cha?


--------------------
<a href="https://files.shroomery.org/files/04-03/428144166-sry.jpg" target="_blank"></a>

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Mitchnast]
    #4657266 -

objective truth exists.

I can't prove it, nor can I prove that any particular statement is objectivley true.

So what?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Ravus]
    #4657278 -

Quote:
Say reality only existed within your internal brain, and though there was something outside of your brain....


Whoa. Stop right there. If reality exists only within my brain, then any 'something outside my brain" is by definition not reality. We're back to solipsism again.

Quote:
You are one subjective human being, interpreting reality through your perception and logic, but there is always the possibility that your interpretations are not only subjective, but flat-out wrong compared to the actual external nature.


It doesn't matter if they are flat-out "wrong" as long as they are consistently flat-out wrong in the same way. For example, say my faulty perception leads me to see green as red and red as green (as in certain forms of color-blindness) or that a defect in my sight leads me to consistently misread a thermometer as 5 degrees Celsius rather than 0 degrees Celsius. This still doesn't prevent me from determining objective truth. For example, I will know that water freezes at 5 degrees Celsius on Monday morning, and at 5 degrees Celsius on Monday afternoon and next Saturday it still freezes at 5 degrees Celsius. So I say water freezes at 5 degrees Celsius, you say it freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. We're both right.

Quote:
We cannot verify the external nature, because all verifications occur using our perception and our logic.


You are setting the bar impossibly high. Of course we can verify using only our organs of perception (senses) and logic. What else have we? That's why I said that people who trust the evidence of their senses don't argue about whether it is possible to know objective truths -- we know it is possible. It is only those who reject the evidence of their senses who play the uktimately futile charade of solipsism. It is self-evident that if you reject all input from your only methods of apprehending the universe (your senses and your intellect) you end up with nothing. As I said, to take that approach trivializes everything. It is petty and not worthy of serious attention from those of us who don't reject the only tools we have for apprehending the universe.

This is why I say as soon as someone raises the solipsism canard (and someone always does) there is no point discussing things further with that solipsist, since a solipsist professes to believe that I am a figment of his imagination anyway. Why should I expend energy communicating with someone who doesn't even believe I exist? Life's too short for that.


Phred


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

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: psychomime]
    #4657495 -

Quote:
there are two sides arguing 1'st year philosophy on an issue that cannot be resolved.


exactly! it's unresolvable whether any object exists; the only thing left is emotion.

a person is blind to what has no meaning for him. ultimately the only reality is emotion. IOW desire IOW subjective value.

hypothetical example, i consider asking out girl Y. i can't know for sure beforehand if she's going to say yes or no. yet i choose to ask or not to ask. lust or fear. which overrides the other, i act. desire is what's true. if you say that's blind faith, i say people believe what they want to believe.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: crunchytoast]
    #4657510 -

The only ultimate reality isn't emotion, but rather it is experience. Everything you know is part of this subjective experience, and because it's all you'll ever know, to your mind it is absolute. Emotions, logic, perception, all are simply aspects of our subjective experience.

Even if everything is a delusion and a hallucination, the experience is still real to itself.


--------------------
So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Ravus]
    #4657664 -

my argument is that since a person is blind to what has no meaning for them, it is the emotion behind the experience that makes it real


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Ravus]
    #4658138 -

Ravus said:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you believe objective truth can coexist with the possibility that it is not true, such as if solipsism was indeed correct?


Care to rephrase that? I'm unsure what you are asking.



Say reality only existed within your internal brain, and though there was something outside of your brain, it was so vastly different from your internal interpretation of the external signals that the external world could not even be verified. You are one subjective human being, interpreting reality through your perception and logic, but there is always the possibility that your interpretations are not only subjective, but flat-out wrong compared to the actual external nature.

We cannot verify the external nature, because all verifications occur using our perception and our logic. Science revolves around making experiments and observing the results, but observations rely on perception, which is subjective. You can't verify that a color you're seeing is interpreted the same way by someone else, or that an emotion you're feeling is felt by someone else. They can tell you they feel it, but you can never actually verify it, because you're trapped in one subjective point of view.

Therefore, the possiblity exists that this point of view is not an objective truth, but simply a subjective, relative truth. We can't go outside of our single point of view and verify that objective truth exists in the outer universe, because the only way we can verify it is by perceiving it, thinking about it, and therefore making it part of our subjective mind. It is impossible to tell the difference between something objective and something subjective, because both are perceived and incorporated subjectively, allowing for the possibility that everything is subjective.

With the possibility that truth is just a relative interpretation, and the lack of an ability to go outside one's single point of view and verify it from any other point of view, doesn't the simple possibility compromise any absolute or objective truth?


I would say that before the idea of perception and logic comes awareness: consciousness. Is it possible to perceive or use your logic if you are not aware of it?

I hear all these people talking about how impossible it is, etc... but did you ever think what's the the purpose of meditation? Is it not to get rid of all the subjectiveness buy re-identifying the soul with the spirit and not with our bodies? Meditation is not about thinking you are meditating. It's not about the mind. If you were able to fully transcends the mind, would there be any place for subjectiveness?

By the way...the symbolic halo depicted in paints of Jesus and saints symbolizes the unbroken communion with Spirit.

Edited by Delusion_of_Self (09/14/05 02:12 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Asante]
    #4658235 -

Quote:
Quote:
As for, "I think, therefore I am," not being proof of existence, more nonsense. As several others in this thread have pointed out, that is one thing that can be objectively known.


.
Umm, no, because... (bear with me)
.
Quote:
the closest thing to an objective fact that you can get from that is "thoughts exist."


.
Both these things assume logic exists, or has a bearing on the possible objective reality. If logic crumbles, nothing makes sense.
.
"I think therefore I am" is bollocks because it assumes that the logic that goes along with it exists as well.
.
You are assuming the way you think is a point of solid ground, but none of us have any solid ground to stand on.



Can someone please address this? Because if it is uncertain that logic has any bearing on reality, this so called "unsolvable first-year philosophy" thingie actually IS solved, resulting in that nothing is certain because we can't even be certain that our methods of approaching reality (logic) have any basis in fact, thus reducing us to a being trapped in a logic system or, as psychiatry calls it, web of delusions. Our web is just pretty consistently woven.

Naturally I can't be right. It would be silly that I'd solve an "unsolvable matter" of Philosophy. But where am I wrong?


..but then again I solved the chicken-or-egg thingie too, so  :wink:


--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
personal empowerment for the world

:nyan: LGBT - Love God Before Tradition :nyan:

Edited by Asante (09/14/05 02:27 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: Asante]
    #4658919 -

i agree it's uncertain, but if you want a counterargument:

is there objective truth? logic isn't an object. a system with rules will still have rules even if nothing is present for the rules to act on.

can you say, 'how do we know these rules are true?' sure, but not from the point of view of the system itself. the system makes statements about the objects in that system; the rules and the objects are qualitatively different. it's a misapplication of the rules. to call into the question the rules of the system, you need a different system. this second system can call into question the first, since the rules of the first are the objects in the second system. but you still have logic (viz the second system) that calls into question the logic of the first.


--------------------
"consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Objective Truth [Re: falcon]
    #4663136 -

The original topic was, "Is there objective truth?". I think there is.
Unfortunately I'm having a hard time putting it into words.

Ok so I don't have it all worked out, here's some more Universal truths.

This.
That.
Other stuff.

This is.
That is.
Other stuff is.

Uh oh, number aren't philosophy, yet you need numbers or at least
some way to distinguish oh, lets say maybe four things as a something
that can distinguish things that you are a thing. A thing with awareness
that can distinguish things. Even if you are a solopist, there must be
an awareness of at least four things that you perceive or are your own personal distinguishable four delusions.

Edited by falcon (09/14/05 11:40 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

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

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Truth?
( 1 2 3 4 ... 10 11 all )		 Anonymous 17,630 205 10/21/02 02:08 PM
by Anonymous
* What is the Truth?
( 1 2 3 all )		 andrash 3,940 43 01/24/03 03:42 PM
by Anonymous
* The Official Truth Thread - No jokes please!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 World Spirit 20,012 178 10/31/02 12:23 AM
by Strumpling
* "Sometimes truth defies reason"
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 thePatient 12,826 144 09/23/02 10:46 PM
by Anonymous
* objective reality does not exist
( 1 2 all )		 monoamine 6,574 34 11/01/02 08:55 AM
by Newbie2000
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 6,263 35 04/24/03 05:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic
* truth?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 deep_umbra 5,839 66 05/21/02 09:12 AM
by Anonymous
* Objective reality challange gribochek 1,923 8 01/31/02 09:20 PM
by Swank

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
6,902 topic views. 0 members, 162 guests and 25 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 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 17 queries.