|
 Fliquid
Back from being gone.
 
Registered: 03/18/02
Posts: 6,953
Loc: omotive
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
 Re: Truth?  [Re: ]
#872494 - 09/09/02 12:46 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Something that adds to the realisation of truth:
The feel.
It, the itch.. The 'i know it can't be, or its not like that'.
The unbound sensor that gives as a little push into the right direction. That is one thing even i can not clarify its origin from. 
If anyone can, please do..
--------------------
 My latest music! 
|
Fliquid
Back from being gone.
Registered: 03/18/02
Posts: 6,953
Loc: omotive
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
 Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#872505 - 09/09/02 12:52 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Ahaaahhh!!! But the I in you is not what you are!!!
You are the compilation of your entire beeing. But not in a way that you are an I.
Because i is the natural response to consiousness, i is the failsafe for total insanity. If not for i, you could not even see difference. Because you would not see yourself as a ego centred beeing.
I know it has nothing to do with the topic. BUT IT IS THE TRUTH!! 
--------------------
My latest music!
|
Zahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 20 years, 7 months
|
 Re: Truth? [Re: Fliquid]
#872525 - 09/09/02 12:58 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Fliquid.. what is your avatar supposed to be? 
--------------------
|
Grav
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Last seen: 12 years, 4 months
|
Re: Truth? [Re: Fliquid]
#872535 - 09/09/02 01:02 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think that may be sort of what i was thinking about..
the obscured feeling which just has some sort of essence.
i guess it doesnt help much to talk about something so 'mystic'
but im willing to bet if i closed my eyes and started living like a sheep then those feelings would begin to feel more and more like a far-off oasis instead of an underground river running beneath my feet.
hey, i like that analogy.
|
vaporbrains
Cub Scout
Registered: 09/09/02
Posts: 539
Loc: ghetto# 03479
Last seen: 19 years, 10 months
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#872547 - 09/09/02 01:07 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
most postmodern philosophers and some moderns don't subscribe to descartes ergo cogito sum. i am pretty unfamiliar with thier philosophies though so we'll skip em.
a simple thought experiment will serve to disprove such hasty suppositions.
If a computer were programmed to simulate a conscious entity and insert itself into a virtual world, would the virtual entity be able to say "i think therefore i am." ? i say he would not because he doesn't really exist and he isn't really thinking. the computer exists and it is thinking. the virtual entity is just a part of the computer that has forgotten that is part of the computer.
--------------------
All refrences to and statements concerning mushrooms, mushroom cultivation, and mushroom related paraphrenalia refer specifically to the cultivation of legal species.
|
Fliquid
Back from being gone.
Registered: 03/18/02
Posts: 6,953
Loc: omotive
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
Re: Truth? [Re: Zahid]
#872560 - 09/09/02 01:14 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Its a picture of my baby girl in here mama's tummy...
She shall be born around 2 november... 
--------------------
My latest music!
|
Anonymous
|
|
Well as you can see by this time there are many posts to answer. But I try to answer the posts in the order that they were posted. Not always possible but it is a goal that I strive for. That said, here is my answer to yours.
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.
We standardize truth according to several kinds of ways. We use the scientific method to verify as much as we can things not apprehendable by normal means. If we can apprehend them by normal means we use logic, which is a subset of philosophy, and philosophy proper to determine what is true or what exists.
For the nonce we have no empirical evidence that God exists. However, if we did you would have to admit it or be incorrect. Some sections of science are so well documented, and it pains me to say this, that they are beyond reasonable doubt. I say reasonable because science is one of the ways by which we know the world. Regardless of what certain people claim we know that man landed on the moon. It is a scientific fact. There are many scientific facts that came from that journey. We use logic as a test to see if something is true. A set of premises may be valid logically but the conclusion may not be true. I'm doing really bad at this but I am tired. I hope I am being clear enough that you can understand.
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 would substitute the word 'knowledge' for the word 'belief'. This is not semantical hairsplitting. The word 'belief' is better suited for things we cannot prove. What in your opinion constitutes 'objective'?
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.
Parts of this are entirely incorrect. It is an incontrovertible truth that you can prove, and not just with a reasonable doubt, that the ocean has salt in it. The water from the ocean can be analyzed to see if it contains salt. This is pure science and results in a conclusion that is undeniably true. The ideas contained in this paragraph are novel to me. Where did you get them?
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.
This is the error of reductionism which assumes that quantifiable parts of a thing have more reality than the thing itself. It is a common error.
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.
Most of this could have been clarified by using different terms. I do not 'believe' the sun is outside the earth. I know it.
I am sorry this didn't come out as clear as I would have liked it. Most have been the lack of coffee. 
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Truth? [Re: MAIA]
#872655 - 09/09/02 02:17 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I think I might understand what you are getting at but I am not completely sure. Looks good on paper anyway.
|
Anonymous
|
|
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...
As far as knowing whether or not you exist I would say the chances are likely. Since this is the Internet I cannot be certain because I cannot see you. If you are a Turing machine please tell me now. If I saw you and performed a few tests I would conclude that you exist AND are human and I would know it beyond any doubt. For now all I know for sure is that there is a consciousness communicating with me through machines.
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).
I am not referring to a moral code per se. I do know a few moral absolutes. I declare them to be true beyond a doubt. Aristotle, have you read him?
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.
Actually I was referring to moral relativism ala Fletcher but pure moral relativism is just as flawed. I might explain it later for now I do not think there is enough time.
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. + the preceding paragraphs
Yes, all you have done is substitute an unworkable definition in the place of a workable one. So, what you have said is silly.
Cheers,
|
Anonymous
|
|
Yes, it's best we skip the postmoderns because it would be very difficult if not impossible to show why they are wrong about nearly everything they think. Philosophy took a wrong turn ih the Middle Ages and hasn't recovered since.
If a computer were programmed to simulate a conscious entity and insert itself into a virtual world, would the virtual entity be able to say "i think therefore i am." ? i say he would not because he doesn't really exist and he isn't really thinking. the computer exists and it is thinking. the virtual entity is just a part of the computer that has forgotten that is part of the computer.
Fallacy of a weak analogy. We are not computers and neither are computers human. They are incapable of conceptual abstraction. When I referred to the Turing machine I was hinting at that. The day that we can program a machine that can function mentally as well as we do is the day that you can come forth with such a thought experiment. That day will never come and recedes further and further into the distance everyday.
Cheers,
|
pattern
multiplayer
Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: Truth? [Re: LOBO]
#873185 - 09/09/02 06:42 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
> At one point the truth was that the earth was flat, today we know that is a sphere.
The theory that the Earth is flat was abstractly true, but we found that there is more to it. Back then, it was true enough to describe a big flat piece of land as flat. In reality, it was just a "almost flat" surface on a giant sphere.
I suspect many of the truths we believe today are abstractly true. We are missing out on the bigger picture because we don't have all the data.
Everyone believes we evolved from apes. Abstractly true?
--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom
|
wrestler_az
PsiLLy BiLLy
Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 13,688
Loc: day dreams of a mad man
Last seen: 10 hours, 30 minutes
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#873281 - 09/09/02 07:43 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
i wish i had joined this thread earlier.....to much stuff to have to read to catch up on all that has been said.....a couple of interesting things have been said, as i skimmed over the posts.... i like the idea that even our existance may not be a truth....what if i am just a figment of someones elses imagination, just a manifestation playing out a role in their subconsious as they sleep at night?
truth is beyond or reach.....we dont have the capability of understanding the truth at this state of our existance, theres just too much out there that may be involved, it was once thought as truth that the earth was the center of the universe and that the stars were fixed points of light on the inside of a chrystaline sphere......boy, we were way off! who knows what other truths will be disproven in my lifetime.....
--------------------
how's your WOW?
Edited by yageman (04/20/06 4:20 PM)
|
 infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#873367 - 09/09/02 08:56 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Actually, my narrow definition of "absolute truth" isn't completely useless - it marks a boundry. In the other extreme are people who claim that "truth is whatever you want it to be". This is a definition of truth diluted to the point of meaninglessness. There is a spectrum of Truth. Most of the things we consider truth (scientific truths, moral truths etc.) are somewhere in between and these are not to be confused with Absolute Truth.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#873382 - 09/09/02 09:17 PM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
When I referred to the Turing machine I was hinting at that. The day that we can program a machine that can function mentally as well as we do is the day that you can come forth with such a thought experiment. That day will never come and recedes further and further into the distance everyday.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that the "day will never come" when a machine "can function mentally as well as we do". The coming years might prove you wrong. It's true that all the computing power in the world today doesn't even come close to the processing power of a single human brain, but computer technology is still advancing at an exponential rate.
The human brain does not have unlimited processing or storage capacity - a Turing machine isn't needed. If our brains are just electro-chemical machines, a computer with enough processing power and storage capacity should be able to achieve consciousness and thought. This assumes that there is nothing *special* about the human mind - that consciousness is a natural emergent property of organized matter, not something that is "granted" by a supreme being.
Of course there is the remote possibility that the day has already come and we are the result (If that's the case, I think "they" need to refine our programming  ).
|
Amoeba665
strange
Registered: 05/23/00
Posts: 275
Loc: a hidden microutopia at t...
Last seen: 12 years, 10 months
|
|
boy i don't even know where to start. i've been away from the board for a while, i'm glad i stopped by in time to catch this thread. i suppose first off, i'll give an analogy.. i'm kinda surprised no one else has already brought this one up..
let's suppose we have an elephant sitting in a big jungle somewhere. and with the elephant we also have a few blind men who are groping the elephant, trying to understand just what it is. one of the men feels the tail and says "it is like a rope", another feels the elephants side and decides it is like a wall. a third blind man feels the truck and says it is a snake, a fourth feels the leg and decides it is a tree, and so on. anyway, the point of this analogy is that they all base their understanding of reality on whichever part of the elephant they have been exposed to, but then they jump to conclusions without having all the information, without having experienced the entire elephant. so although all their experiences are valid and yes, the elephant *is* like a tree and like a snake and like a rope and like a wall, it is all of those things and more. and yes, the elpehant *does* exist, and it is what is is no matter what *you* think it is.
and as for science. the point others in this thread were trying to make is, although the scientific method is quite reliable (it is based on reason,after all), its *explanations* are based upon our current understanding of the elephant. in other words, all truths which science uncovers are only objective in that they can be verified by our collective human experiences as opposed to only our individual human experiences. so they are actually subjective. scientific theories are *based* on absolute truth (everything that happens and exists is because of absolute truth), but the theories themselves are never absolutely true. they are only possibilities, and their only use is as a tool to aid mankind in whatever its goals may be. [insert plato's allergory of the cave here]
in reality, although absolute truth most certainly does exist, just as the elephant exists independently of its observers, it can not be understood outside of itself. only the absolute can truly know the absolute, only the elephant can truly know itself, only i can truly know me, and so on...
so assuming the above is true, that absolute truth exists but we can only understand it subjectively, and our subjective interpretation is just a symbol pointing to the thing itself, as someone else said . . . i would like to give an interpretation of absolute truth in two simple words : nothing exists. the discordians say "nothing is true, everyting is permitted", but this can be confusing, because it can be interpeted literally as meaning that *nothing is true* (although it is true that we can never know truth while outside of it), when in reality what i believe it means is that *nothing exists*, with nothing being the "absence of existence". it is true that the absence of existence exists, that something came out of nothing, that everything has a beginning and an end except for whatever is before the beginning and after the end, whatever lies outside time, which is incomprehensible and inexplicable by anything within time, and which is why according to us, as beings stuck in time, existence is a paradox. so for me, paradox is as close as i can get to absolute truth, i see paradox as the fundamental characteristic of existence. and using this symbol of absolute truth as a foundation for my sense of reason (much like science uses objective reality as it is known as the foundation for its sense of reason), i can come to other possible interpretations of additional aspects of absolute truth. such as.. the fundamental characteristic of existence is paradox, the fundamental characteristic of life (which is not the same as existence) is growth. i also believe in moral absolutes that exist in every conscious being as conscience (which has become buried within us long ago, beneath many layers of false ego & its proponents - mechanical, chemical "i"s), free will, the necessary balance and co-existence (how paradoxical!) of chaos (as the source of life) and order (as the source of existence) and other stuff i won't get into right now (maybe later) because this letter is long enough, those truths are getting gradually more and more subjective, i'm getting more and more nonsensical, and it's 4:45 in the morning and i have to work in a few hours so um well i'm gonna go now.
oh yeah - and as for A.I.... the difference between us and AI is that we can imagine, and we have a desire to understand. basically, we have desire. you could also mention things like the subconscious, and art and music and creativity and all that. but its quite possible that all that is programmed into us, and also that desire is programmed into us (do we know *why* we desire? *why* we want to know, to strive, to evolve?), and thus we are simply machines programmed to desire consciousness and truth and understanding and sex and drugs and dead baby jokes. maybe nothing, whcih knew itself only as absolutely nothing, made some complicated thinking desiring machines so that it could subjectively and not absolutely know itself as something, only to eventually find out that its simply nothing?
hi mom!
--------------------
---
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
Alright, now we're talking absolute truths. thank you.
I'm glad you brought up the elephant analogy. The elephant exists - that is an absolute truth. The elephant is a rope, a tree, a snake and a wall. These are truths based on perception.
"I think therefore I am" is an absolute truth. "I am a human being" is a truth based only on perception. It is true beyond doubt that "I" exist, it is perceived that "I" am a human being. Two different kinds of "truth".
Also, "absence of existence" is an absolute truth. If existence can be defined by its boundries, 'nothing' exists. "something exists" is another absolute truth.
Science deals in the world that we can percieve. With our senses and instruments, we can only see a part of that proverbial elephant and science is forever cut off from absolute truth.
the fundamental characteristic of existence is paradox
I don't know about that. Paradox may be a fundamental characteristic of human existence. Would a conscious universe experience paradox?
|
Anonymous
|
|
Actually, my narrow definition of "absolute truth" isn't completely useless - it marks a boundry. In the other extreme are people who claim that "truth is whatever you want it to be". This is a definition of truth diluted to the point of meaninglessness. There is a spectrum of Truth. Most of the things we consider truth (scientific truths, moral truths etc.) are somewhere in between and these are not to be confused with Absolute Truth.
Not a lot of time and none tomorrow but I will say this. You speak with a rare precision that is sadly lacking on this forum. I like it.
Cheers,
|
Anonymous
|
|
I wouldn't be so quick to say that the "day will never come" when a machine "can function mentally as well as we do". The coming years might prove you wrong. It's true that all the computing power in the world today doesn't even come close to the processing power of a single human brain, but computer technology is still advancing at an exponential rate.
Here's why I say less likely. You are correct. Computer technology is advancing at an expotential rate. What that means is that the more advanced it gets without creating a Turing machine the less likely it will be that it will ever create one. It is the law of diminishing returns. An example would be if an object were fastened to the floor by supranatural means and we were trying to lift it, if the amount of ergs we were generating through the lifting device were increasing expotentially the less likely it will be that we will ever lift it. Of course that means two things. One, we may be able to lift it and we just haven't increased the ergs enough yet. The more ergs applied and sooner or later somebody, except those with a predisposition to think otherwise, will look for other reasons, i.e. perhaps supranatural ones, to account for the attachment. Two, the object is supranaturally attached.
I wish I had a bit more time today to devote to this but I think you catch my drift.
Cheers,
|
Fliquid
Back from being gone.
Registered: 03/18/02
Posts: 6,953
Loc: omotive
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#873684 - 09/10/02 03:37 AM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Can't you people make short postings?
I need my eyes for other things also... 
--------------------
My latest music!
|
Fliquid
Back from being gone.
Registered: 03/18/02
Posts: 6,953
Loc: omotive
Last seen: 9 years, 9 months
|
 Re: Truth? [Re: ]
#873689 - 09/10/02 03:42 AM (22 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm sorry but i don't have the time to read all this, and therefore i'm sorry to say. That i have to withdraw from the discussion.
I hope my adding helped a bit...
--------------------
My latest music!
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Red Vein Kratom 
APE Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )
World Spirit
Phluck
buttonion
cybrbeast
Ravus
Source
Shroomalicious
Zahid