|
Anonymous
|
|
Bravo, mirrorsaww.
What you are referring to here is another absolute truth as far as I can tell. Any thing is that thing and no other. I know it sounds like a bit of semantic juggling but I assure you it is not. Not only is truth, truth, but my car is my car, and the sky is the sky, etc. This is a bedrock Truth of logic called The Law of Identity. I assume as philosophers came to the conclusion that not much could be known with certitude they stumbled across this little gem.
Pretty earth-shattering, isn't it?
|
Anonymous
|
|
Well well the first definitive post from you with substance sans attitude. I like it. You should wear it more often. The color goes great with your eyes.
I have a slightly different interpretation of that quote by Lao Tzu. I take it to mean that if you know something you will not tell it and if you are communcating you do not know anything. I always call that quote a thread stopper because usually the poster who posts it is implying that no one knows what they are talking about and the only way to appear wise is to shut up. Rarely have I seen it work though.
Let's examine these propositions of yours and hold them up to the light.
although i would argue that it isn't "preposterous" that all knowledge is incommunicable. perhaps only approximations of knowledge are communicable.
I never said all knowledge was directly communicable. My tooth hurts. Can you feel it? But that does not mean that we cannot communicate some truths. I exist. I am the person typing this post to you. That is true and I have just conveyed it. Other interpretations of the preceding three sentences other than the obvious meaning are flights of fancy around castles in the sky.
i think it should be fairly obvious that Absolute Truth is a worthless goal. if you define absolute truth as a true knowledge of everything then you posit a deterministic universe that is capable of observing itself in it's entirety. a concept i don't think any of us can understand. the search for truth is probably a more valuable goal. it should also be noted that as biological beings we are inherently unable to admit truth into our minds except in small doses. absolute truth would mean death to a human being.
Well, that's a mouthful. I like your use of the lower case i, it's classy, even egoless.  Absolute truth as you have defined it might be worthless but even more so it would be impossible. A search for truth is what we're doing, or so I hope.
Here's a free pass. If you ever need a transfer don't be afraid to speak up. Next stop: Gangsta Land
[looks at watch, dam we're late again]
|
 vaporbrains
Cub Scout
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 539
Loc: ghetto# 03479
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
|
 Re: Truth?  [Re: ]
#871444 - 09/09/02 09:19 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
he who knows, speaks not. he who speaks, knows not. -Lao Tzu
also, see Nietzsche for the most revolutionary thought on truth in the past 100 years.
--------------------
All refrences to and statements concerning mushrooms, mushroom cultivation, and mushroom related paraphrenalia refer specifically to the cultivation of legal species.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Truth? [Re: Fliquid]
#871472 - 09/09/02 09:40 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Alrighty then:
"General conclusions are always generated from minor premises that arise from other premises?"
Is that what you are saying? That is my comment tucked inside the statement you made. I don't know where you are going with this but as long as you don't ask me for gas money it's cool.
Cheers for constitution,
|
 WhiskeyClone
Not here
 
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,512
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#871489 - 09/09/02 09:47 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
To me, truth is just those things that I have come to believe (for whatever reason) beyond a reasonable doubt. In this sense, truth is ultimately subjective. To a Christian, God exists. That is the truth; there is no argument. To me, God does not exist; that is the truth. Since every individual mind has its own unique perspecitive of the universe, there can be no real standardization of truth. We can share the same beliefs, but that's about as close as two separate minds can get to mutually 'knowing' something is true.
Science is a method of testing based on these shared beliefs, until it can be shown that something is true beyond a reasonable doubt. Again, 'reasonable' is subjective, but I still feel confident enough saying that if I throw some balsa wood in some distilled water, that I am CERTAIN it will not sink.
I'll start by saying that not all truths can be shoehorned into a 'scientific' paradigm or schema. In other words, you may know something is true without analyzing it using scientific instruments. Various experiences that we all have fit into this category. For example, I know that I love various people. The fact of that evidences itself in reality by the actions I take toward them. I don't use beakers and test tubes to know this. I simply observe the actions I make and conclude it is true.
Contrary to belief, science is NOT a method of determining 'the truth' with quantitative instruments such as beakers and test tubes. Our culture has associated white labcoats and bubbling Erlenmeyer flasks with 'science,' but it's more of an ideology than anything else. Science is two things: a) a body of 'knowledge' that has been tested to the extent that one can feel safe assuming it, and b) a method of testing this knowledge such that one can believe it beyond a reasonable doubt (the scientific method). The reason quantitative measurements are most often used for science they allow us to share certain beliefs with little subjectivity; a milliliter to me is almost certainly the same as a milliliter to you, or to Nelson Mandella or Michael Jordan. Standardization like this makes communication much easier. We can't really accurately relate emotions to someone else, as we can with figures and quantities. There are established processes for determining what is valid scientific data and what is not, and so far this system has worked quite well. Not many people would disagree that the oceans have salt in them, but it can never be truly 'proved.' To use our observations for any good, we must each individually decide what we are willing to assume and what we are not. If we assumed nothing, we would know nothing, and wouldn't be able to do anything science has allowed us to do (build complex structures, travel to space, etc.) In theory, we could be wrong about every single thing we 'know,' but I doubt it.
But who is to say that the psychological processes involving the emotion of love cannot be distilled down to specific neurons firing in specific, measurable ways? Just because humans cannot pinpoint the physical cause of 'love' does not mean we never will. You technically don't 'know' that you love a particular person; you are just aware of a particular emotion that your upbringing and education has taught you is to be labelled 'love.' It may be the same emotion others experience that they describe as love, or it may not be. So technically, you don't 'know' that you love a particular person any more than I 'know' that the coffee makes me hyper. You have just identified a particular emotion with your particluar schema for the word 'love', which may or may not be similar to another person's schema for it. But I'm sure that you KNOW that you do 'love' certain people. Certainly you believe it enough to assume it.
The term 'truth' is definately anything but concrete, because we cannot possibly all share the exact same schema for it. Or anything else for that matter. The best we can do is believe, but people have varying standards for what is believable or not.
Heheh that was long. Must be the coffee.
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Truth? [Re: LOBO]
#871490 - 09/09/02 09:47 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yes and all trucks are semis as well. Don't forget 4's, all 4's are semiphores.
Whatever are you talking about?
The statement itself is a truth is it not, or so you are maintaining? Well then, ipso facto it negates itself.
But thanks for playing. Here's a home version to amaze your friends with. Johhny, tell him what he's won......
Cheers,
|
Anonymous
|
|
"he who knows, speaks not. he who speaks, knows not. -Lao Tzu"
Yet another statement whose existence negates itself. The idea that knowledge, which is a subset of truth, is incommunicable is in itself preposterous.
Next,
|
Fliquid
Back from being gone.
Registered: 03/18/02
Posts: 6,953
Loc: omotive
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
 Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#871505 - 09/09/02 09:52 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, thats right. And it starts from a very young age. So the child (even with a lack of much examples) shall generate its own conclusions, and store them as the basics for live. All based on first time experiences.
So truth is based on first time experiences that are reexperienced time after time, after time. Reanalysed and restructured in levels of truth.
Example:
1. Truth Horse. 10
2. Truth Fly 6
- Truth horse is encountered but seems to be a bit wrong. It is altered or removed if concluded from external input that it is totaly wrong.
- Truth Fly is encountered and reaction to Truth Fly is positive (rewarded by chemical pleasure reactions in the brain, happiness) so Truth Fly goes up a few points and grows to level 8
This means every tiny little thing is catagorised and recatagorised every milisecond of a second. Like a gameshow where people are running around reordering books in high and low shelves.
--------------------
 My latest music! 
|
Anonymous
|
|
Good entry. I give it a 7 cuz I like the beat.
A cursory glance tells me you've been sniffing the wine corks again.
Seriously, there is a lot of substance in what you have said with a few things that I disagree. I want to give it a full treatment and not just rattle something of the top of my acidhead so I'll postpone a substantial review and commentary for later.
Thanks Cyber chump, that was pretty good by my lights.
Cheers for the Scientific Method,
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Truth? [Re: Fliquid]
#871527 - 09/09/02 09:59 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Whew, well at least I got it right. I was really sweating it there for a while. I see you picked up another mushroom to your rating. Here, let me add another.
We need to talk more about this. If English is your second language I am most impressed.
Sincerely,
|
WhiskeyClone
Not here
Registered: 06/25/01
Posts: 16,512
Loc: Longitudinal Center of Canada ...
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#871535 - 09/09/02 10:01 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I eagerly await the full treatment 
--------------------
Welcome evermore to gods and men is the self-helping man. For him all doors are flung wide: him all tongues greet, all honors crown, all eyes follow with desire. Our love goes out to him and embraces him, because he did not need it.
~ R.W. Emerson, "Self-Reliance"
|
Fliquid
Back from being gone.
Registered: 03/18/02
Posts: 6,953
Loc: omotive
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
 Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#871536 - 09/09/02 10:02 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
It is my second language, and i would love to continue the conversation. But its time to go home now. My shift is up. We shall continue this later on. PM me please so i remember...
--------------------
My latest music!
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Truth? [Re: Fliquid]
#871550 - 09/09/02 10:08 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I will certainly PM. Looks like I have another playmate. Oh Goody. [claps hands for joy]
At least you have a shift. I am shiftless.
Till then mon ami,
|
pattern
multiplayer
Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 years, 15 days
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#871579 - 09/09/02 10:20 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
>And if our experience deceives us? our perceptions deceive us?
It's still an experience: if we are decieved, lied to, etc, we still have the opportunity to discover the "truth behind the truth". I think all of reality is like this: we experience truth but there is always more truth behind it. In other words, every truth is made up of a pattern of truths.
>What then? Where do we stand? What rock or firmament is there to stand on?
I exist.
>Is everything relative?
As far as I can tell, yes. Every truth may be relative to the fact "I exist"
> I think some of us have concluded that there is at least one absolute truth and that is our existence. Would you maintain that as well?
Absolutely!
--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom
|
vaporbrains
Cub Scout
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 539
Loc: ghetto# 03479
Last seen: 19 years, 8 months
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#872280 - 09/09/02 10:30 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I never said all knowledge was directly communicable. My tooth hurts. Can you feel it? But that does not mean that we cannot communicate some truths. I exist. I am the person typing this post to you. That is true and I have just conveyed it. Other interpretations of the preceding three sentences other than the obvious meaning are flights of fancy around castles in the sky.
i think it would be more accurate to say "i think i exist" and "i think i am the person typing this post to you." For example, if you take into account that you may have taken Datura (Jimson Weed) only hours ago and fogotten about it, then you have to admit that you really don't "know" anything about what "you" are really doing. (Jimson weed is known for causing those who take it to forget that they took a drug at all and subsequently enter a true hallucinatory state.)
Specifically regarding "i am the person typing this post to you." one could argue that this statement could be being written by several agents of your brain all working in concert to give the mere illusion that "you" are "the person" who is "writing." perhaps you aren't writing anything. perhaps parts of your brain are actually doing the writing and your only job is to "think that i am" + "writing." essentially, i am saying that identity may be an illusion and if it is then you could not communicate the statement "i am the person typing this post to you" or "i think i am the person typing this post to you" truthfully, because there is no I. this could apply to all sorts of statements, identity related or otherwise, that you think are true but are not. so even if you can communicate some things with a minimum of ambiguity you still don't know that they are true...even if they seem really really true.
whew, that was long winded..buti was typing as i was thinking..so it will naturally ramble.
--------------------
All refrences to and statements concerning mushrooms, mushroom cultivation, and mushroom related paraphrenalia refer specifically to the cultivation of legal species.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Truth? [Re: pattern]
#871638 - 09/09/02 10:41 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
You've summed it up quite nicely.
The next class is in the laboratory though. We will be ablating rat brains. I hope you join us.
Cheers,
|
MAIA
World-BridgerKartikeya (DftS)
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 7,399
Loc: Erra - 20 Tauri - M45 Sta...
Last seen: 2 months, 9 days
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#872335 - 09/09/02 10:57 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Truth is inherent to the way we prove reality, the validation of truth is our failling point, so if we are beings that conceptualized and theorize about our own reality is because we can't understand reality as a whole but we try, considering evolution as a determining factor. The conception of reality is created by several defenitions of truths, they create key points so we can build reality with understanding and interact with it.
MAIA
--------------------
Spiritual being, living a human experience ... The Shroomery Mandala
 
Use, do not abuse; neither abstinence nor excess ever renders man happy.
Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#871731 - 09/09/02 11:08 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Well now that this trip is really underway I have a confession to make. I don't know how to drive this bus.
Here, somebody hold the wheel straight while I take a quick toke on this PCP laced cracksoaked DMT I just scored.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!
Here WE GOOOO!!!!
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#872354 - 09/09/02 11:10 AM (22 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I hope you don't mind if I go out on a limb and say I exist
I don't mind 
But do you know for certain that I exist?
Do all these people here exist, or are they just characters in your dream?
Some things we believe on faith...
Here's what I think is up. Most people are terrified to even admit that any truth is absolute in any degree exists in any way whatsoever. The reason for this is because that might in some small way end up with the admitting that God exists or, heaven forbid, there might be some kind of moral code to which we all should adhere
Are you saying that there IS a moral code? If so, is that an absolute truth or a human truth? It's been mentioned before, you can't seperate truth from human experience. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is a moral code to follow, but I can't call it an absolute truth (not by its strict definition).
It seems to me, and here I am being quite serious, that moral relativism has really done its job. The very idea that we question our existence is, behind the scenes, an extreme attachment to the ego
A bit counter-intuitive but I get your point. Relativism makes everything relative to the self, so denial of self-existence casts the self as a supreme being.
I don't deny that I exist, I know that this is real, I know that people around me are real. I BELIEVE that this is real, but I can't be 100% sure of it. I'm only 99.9999999999999999999111% sure. Maybe that's good enough to qualify as an "abolute truth" but I have to leave some room for the possibility that 'self' is an illusion - that my human experience is a simulation just complex and nuanced enough to maintain the illusion of my existence. Can you say for certain that this is not an illusion?
I assure you that I'm not suffering an existential crisis. (not yet )
I know I (the human being) exist. I also know that however unlikely, there are other possibilities to explain my existence.
I know that I'm using a definition of 'absolute truth' that is narrowed to the point of uselessness, but it's important to make the distinction between things we know for certain, and things we think are 99.999999% true.
|
Anonymous
|
|
Well here I am going to just address one aspect of your post even though I find the bulk of it to be incorrect.
"i think it would be more accurate to say "i think i exist" and "i think i am the person typing this post to you."
No, it is not more accurate. I don't think I exist. I know beyond any doubt that I exist. Period, Finito, The End.
Cognito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. If you can think you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you exist because that which can think exists. The act of thinking alone causes us to know we exist. Have you not heard of Descartes?
I wish I had the time to go over every one of your points but I don't they would take more time than I have for it.
Thanks though. Your thoughts are interesting.
(wonders if this is the same vaporbrains)
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit
Phluck
buttonion
cybrbeast
Ravus
Source
Shroomalicious
Zahid