Please comment on the following set of propositions:
1. The real world is separate and distinct from what we think about it.
2. Our thoughts are transient and only known to us alone. We can’t read other people’s minds. In this sense our thoughts do not exist in the real world. Infering their existance because we have those thoughts is irrelevant because they are hidden from others (and objectively from ourselves).
3.Truth, science and logic are human constructs that don’t exist in the real world. That implies that the real world is illogical, unscientific, and there is no truth or falsity in it.
4.Communications have no existence in the real world although the artifacts of communication (books, videos, computer files) do exist. What we learn from communications is in our heads and unavailable to others unless we in turn communicate.
i dunna know how you can say that really. we are part of the world, and that includes out mind. our thoughts and experiences are a direct result of things going on in the world around us. unless your an idealist of sorts. and dont think it really exists in the first place. ive always thought it interesting tho when you think about looking at a wall. You dont see the wall. what you do see is photons bouncing off it and hitting the back of your eye. so while we in no way can really
experience the real world other then through the medium of our senses, it is still obviously out there and is effecting us in some way, otherwise we could not perceive it in the first place.
This all depends on what you believe. If you are a very very dedicated materialist (as i am) i would have to disagree. If everything is some sort of matter or material process, it would then therefore be technically feasable to be able to invent some sort of machine that can read anouther persons mind, it could be like closed captioning on your t-shirt or something.
I agree that logic does not exist outside of the human mind, i think it is more of a recognizable pattern that just happens to correlate with the world aorund us. While it is true that truth is also a human construct, is it then denyable that i am sitting here at a computer right now writing this post to you? And as for science… an apple WILL fall when dropped.
I think it all depends how you look at it. A book is not really a book, what it is is a collection of matter that just so happens to be organized in such a way that our minds recognize it as a book. If all living beings in the universe were suddenly vaporized for some odd reason, would the book sitting on my table still be a form of communication? If there is nobody to read it how is it any different then a rock? And if that is the case, what about the book has suddenly changed now that there is nobody to read it? Nothing. it is and always has been no different then a rock. its just stuff. we just happened to be told growing up how to understand “stuff”. stuff in itself tho is not a form of “communication”. communication itself is a human contruct.
You say: " dunna know how you can say that really. we are part of the world, and that includes out mind. our thoughts and experiences are a direct result of things going on in the world around us. unless your an idealist of sorts. and dont think it really exists in the first place. ive always thought it interesting tho when you think about looking at a wall. You dont see the wall. what you do see is photons bouncing off it and hitting the back of your eye. so while we in no way can really experience the real world other then through the medium of our senses, it is still obviously out there and is effecting us in some way, otherwise we could not perceive it in the first place." I doubt that you see photons bouncing off the wall. Instead you see a wall. We are completely unaware of all the complex physical and chemical reactions necessary for us to percieve that wall. The perception is in the head, and the wall is over there. The two are separate and distinct.
You say: “This all depends on what you believe. If you are a very very dedicated materialist (as i am) i would have to disagree. If everything is some sort of matter or material process, it would then therefore be technically feasable to be able to invent some sort of machine that can read anouther persons mind, it could be like closed captioning on your t-shirt or something.” I’d use different words. I’d say it was theoretically feasable since the mind is physical, but technically impossible even as a subject worth contemplating.
You ask: “While it is true that truth is also a human construct, is it then denyable that i am sitting here at a computer right now writing this post to you?” All I know about where you sat is what you tell me. That forces me to accept what you say, but of course I know that some people lie for no apparent reason. In this case I presume that what you tell me is true, and I know that someone must have sat a computer and keyed in the words, but I also know there are ways my presumption may prove false. Truth is not an absolute. You continued: “And as for science… an apple WILL fall when dropped.” This I know to be true from my own experience.
You say: “I think it all depends how you look at it. A book is not really a book, what it is is a collection of matter that just so happens to be organized in such a way that our minds recognize it as a book. If all living beings in the universe were suddenly vaporized for some odd reason, would the book sitting on my table still be a form of communication? If there is nobody to read it how is it any different then a rock? And if that is the case, what about the book has suddenly changed now that there is nobody to read it? Nothing. it is and always has been no different then a rock. its just stuff.” This confirms that the book is an atrifact – like I said. You continued: “we just happened to be told growing up how to understand “stuff”. stuff in itself tho is not a form of “communication”. communication itself is a human contruct.” That ability transfers the communication from the book into our heads.
Your claim that: "what you do see is photons bouncing off it and hitting the back of your eye. " Have you ever seen a photon? Can you count them? From the science of light we’ve learned to infer the presence of photons without our eyes having the capability of distinguishing individual photos and make us conscious of individual photons.
sorry i dont think i got acrossed what i ment when i said that. what i ment is that what we see is not! the wall. what we see in our brains is a representation that has come about by your brain analyzing individual photons.
f7u2p said:
Truth is an absolute. You knowing it to be so is irrelevent. There is a sun up there weather or not we accept it. But even if there isnt actually a sun out there and im totally wrong in that, truth still does exist. there are realities to the universe weather or not we are aware of them… these are truthes.
When you say: “what i ment is that what we see is not! the wall. what we see in our brains is a representation that has come about by your brain analyzing individual photons.” I’m not sure whether you agree or disagree with my statement that “The two are separate and distinct”.
You said: “But even if there isnt actually a sun out there and im totally wrong in that, truth still does exist.” If you are wrong (i.e. there is no sun), and if everyone agrees there is no sun – then what has become of the absolute truth? On the other hand, if no one else agrees, then I suppose you are just mistaken about the reality of the situation, and the truth most probably lies with what the others think. Of course we could do an experiment but its value would depend on convincing others.
Well if i say that what we see in our minds as the wall is not the wall but mearly a representation of the wall, i would think that qualifys as seperate and distinct. Otherwise it would be the wall and then not be seperate or distinct.
Weather or not somone is convinced or knows or can try and figure out any sort of truth doesnt effect it. Lets pretend for example that there is a type of matter that we do not have any knowledge or hint at in the universe and never will. In this example it is a truth of the universe that this matter exists.
You said" “Lets pretend for example that there is a type of matter that we do not have any knowledge or hint at in the universe and never will. In this example it is a truth of the universe that this matter exists.” How do you know it exists?
i dont. but that is irrelevent to the truth of it. what your saying that there are no absolutes outside of the human mind. simply because it is something distinct and seperate from us. lets look at the matter example. again. can you deny the following statements.
it is either true that this matter exists, or that it is true that it does not exist.
it is true that one of the above statements are true.
1.i belive that we dont live in the real reality.the real reality i read socrates write said that the real reality doesnt change or doesnt move or die.reality to me is the mind that you think with and the things that you perceieve in it.you are in the reality becase you exits in it. if you had no knowledge you yourself wouldnt know so you wouldnt exits?
You say: †i don’t [know it exists]. but that is irrelevent to the truth of it.†I agree that what you don’t know is irrelevant to truth.
As to your two statments, I cannot disagree with either one, but I also cannot see what that proves. I think you may mean to deny that the nature of truth is agreement. Is that what you mean?
The beliefs you describe sound metaphysical. There is no way to prove the metaphysical approach is false. On the other hand metaphysics doesn’t lead anywhere. When metaphysics denies science as some of its advocates often do, I think it provides an unhelpful alternative representation or interpretation of reality.
As I said in my original post: †2. Our thoughts are transient and only known to us alone. We can’t read other people’s minds.†This is the case for all thoughts by anyone regardless of their truth. When we communicate our subjective thoughts they become objective and amenable to agreement. If agreement is sufficient the thought is deemed true, or false, or judgment may be withheld. In any case the nature of truth (or falsity) is agreement.
is then agreement a pre-requisite of the truth of the existance of a/the universe? it takes that for us humans to attribute truth to something. but the truth itself does not require it.
to put forward any sort of proposition and want me to associate truth with it. is kind of difficult for me cause of what your saying… but i know thats kinda irrelevent.
are you saying that truth is simply a concept in our heads? if you are saying that, then you must take your argument a little further and say that all concepts that exist in our heads do not actually exist. People do not exist, the universe doesnt actually exist (after all it is a human concept) grass doesnt exist and matter doesnt actually exist. is that what yoru saying?
