Refute this idea of truth please

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Anomaly654 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:49 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:
Where did I ever indicate any pro for materialism which was trounced by Berkeley.

I misspoke when I said, I leave this last quote as a testament and standard to those who still maintain that materialism isn't a religion.

Should have said "...to those who maintain that materialism isn't a doctrine of atheism." You needn't have identified yourself as a materialist my friend; you've stated in different ways that you only accept empirical reality as valid. This is a primary tenet of the doctrine of materialism. One can claim not to be a duck, but the waddling and quacking nonetheless tells the tale.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Anomaly654 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:10 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:Theology is based on faith [without reason-rationality and proof], thus clings on dogmatically to impossibilities [i.e. God which is like a square-circle]. Theology is driven by an underlying subliminal desperate existential psychology to the extent SOME theists will even kill [murder, genocide] to defend their theism.

Yet one of the most interesting corollaries that develops from the hypothesis of value is its ability to present a feasible motivation mechanism for the necessity to voice unsought disagreement and contempt for a value system one disagrees with. Again, thanks for sharing your opinions, Prism.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:32 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Where did I ever indicate any pro for materialism which was trounced by Berkeley.

I misspoke when I said, I leave this last quote as a testament and standard to those who still maintain that materialism isn't a religion.

Should have said "...to those who maintain that materialism isn't a doctrine of atheism." You needn't have identified yourself as a materialist my friend; you've stated in different ways that you only accept empirical reality as valid. This is a primary tenet of the doctrine of materialism. One can claim not to be a duck, but the waddling and quacking nonetheless tells the tale.
This is confused. Materialism is a kind of metaphysics, with a position on what the real is. Empiricism is the belief that we gain knowledge only through experience, often sense experience. But one need not believe that one is only experiencing or sensing matter. Certainly most empiricists are materialists - though some are not - despite scientific challenges to the notion of matter being anything at all like what materialists used to think of as matter.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:42 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:Since you quote that definition of truth - one amongst a few - I need to repeat that truth is not in reality, but is reality, by that definition.

Sorry, you're losing me. Definitional deficiencies maybe?
I just don't know what to do with saying a chair or a stone or light is a truth or a bearer of truth. Truth is referential. Even universals. I could see saying that universals are real. Or I could see saying that a particular idea, like 'the category of dogs exists and is real'. IOW I could see saying that assertions about universals could be true or false. Also that the statement universals exist, is a true one. IOW that formulation makes sense to me.

But to say universals are true, seems odd to me. Sometimes it sounds like you mean they are real, even though they cannot be experienced.

To put it another way it seems at times like you are saying you are a rationalist. That is we can know things not just via experience. Other times it seems like you are making reality to be (at least also) a set of statements or 'letters' - the latter as a translation of bearers of truth. Like they carry truths inside them.

That's certainly a position and if it is your position, then it might be helpful to say what truth a stone bears. IOW what is stone and what is the truth it bears. The truth it would seem, from my end, would not be an assertion of some kind. So I am not sure what this means.

Everything that exists is a truthbearer: matter, minds, universals, properties, etc.

I don't know what this means. Some of this is empirical, some is not.

This is part of my confusion. On the one hand you tell me If there was a philoosphical orthodoxy, then there would be a consensus. I don't see this. But a couple comments earlier you make what I see as an orthodox distinction--empirical and non-empirical--in your post.
Some of it is stuff, not conceptual. Some of it refers to things, some does not. I don't really care about the distinction between empirical or not. Some would argue that all those things are empirical, even. I am not arguing that things we experience are the only things. But what you refer to in the list seem like different kinds of categorizations. Not different kinds of things.
Moral attributes are non-empirical.
Some philosophers would argue with that.
Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.




I think, but I am not sure, that you are conflating truths with things like universals or laws.

I'm pretty sure I am.
Conflating is a pejorative term. So I assume you mean, you see them as the same. Or you are conceding a point here.


I hold the rules for the behavior of stuff derives from the value content in the stuff and our deduction of these behaviors is itself brought to bear by a union of value between our minds and that content. To clarify, I don't think value itself is the content or is the only factor in shaping realities, but is the dynamic within stuff that creates the principle of unity (in regard to t - t connections) or discord (t - f or f - t connections in the case of intellects) in both empirical and non-empirical stuff.
I don't understand this section.

I claim only to use Avicenna's statement in the Summa (Part One, Q. 16, A. 1, "Whether Truth Resides Only in the
Intellect?") "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it." I only use this single idea as a starting point.
FAir enough. Though I can't parse that sentence, it sure seems like he is using truth in some way similar to the way you are.

Thanks for the advice. I think your interpretation of what I meant is exaggerated though. I feel you're presenting good advice that I can learn from if I can grasp completely what you're saying.
Great. I'll try. I think I will come back later in the thread when I get a better sense of your position. Right now I am not sure.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Anomaly654 » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:00 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:This is confused. Materialism is a kind of metaphysics, with a position on what the real is. Empiricism is the belief that we gain knowledge only through experience, often sense experience. But one need not believe that one is only experiencing or sensing matter. Certainly most empiricists are materialists - though some are not - despite scientific challenges to the notion of matter being anything at all like what materialists used to think of as matter.

I used a common generalization. You seem to want to pin what I say to a high degree of technical accuracy, but context, when appropriate, allows an everyday ‘peoplespeak’ of the common man, in which I admittedly hold membership. I expect 98% understand the non-technical relationship between atheism and materialism.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:21 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Where did I ever indicate any pro for materialism which was trounced by Berkeley.

I misspoke when I said, I leave this last quote as a testament and standard to those who still maintain that materialism isn't a religion.

Should have said "...to those who maintain that materialism isn't a doctrine of atheism." You needn't have identified yourself as a materialist my friend; you've stated in different ways that you only accept empirical reality as valid. This is a primary tenet of the doctrine of materialism. One can claim not to be a duck, but the waddling and quacking nonetheless tells the tale.

You got it wrong.
Empirical evidence is the ground for an extensive range of knowledge [Justified True Beliefs] and 'ism-s' thus you are ignorant or dishonest to attribute my views to 'materialism'.
The irony is theism placed 90% [for some 100%] of its beliefs on faith [without reasons nor proof] and perhaps a 10% weight on empirical evidence.

My basis of knowledge, truth and wisdom is grounded on empirical evidences supported by logic, rationality, wisdom and philosophy-proper. I have mentioned this many times.
Empirical evidence is never 100% reliable, note the multitude and range of empirical illusions plus weaknesses of the human perceptual faculties and the overall mind, thus the need for a meta-view [philosophy-proper] to rationalize these illusions and weaknesses.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:35 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
Karpel Tunnel wrote:This is confused. Materialism is a kind of metaphysics, with a position on what the real is. Empiricism is the belief that we gain knowledge only through experience, often sense experience. But one need not believe that one is only experiencing or sensing matter. Certainly most empiricists are materialists - though some are not - despite scientific challenges to the notion of matter being anything at all like what materialists used to think of as matter.

I used a common generalization. You seem to want to pin what I say to a high degree of technical accuracy, but context, when appropriate, allows an everyday ‘peoplespeak’ of the common man, in which I admittedly hold membership. I expect 98% understand the non-technical relationship between atheism and materialism.
I wish I could hold a high degree of technical accuracy myself. That said, in an ad hom post, in the context of a thread where you seemed to think there was a philosophical orthodoxy, it stood out. It seemed a part of you seeing a monolith, even in the ad hom portion, where I see something more complicated. If the idea of this philosophical monolith is not central to your position, then this matters less. Your previous response to me indicated flexibility around that. I responded here, to this particular post, before I encounted that flexibility.

On the point itself, it wasnt' the conflation of atheism and materialism I was responding to, but the conflation of materialism and empricism. I think that it is important to not conflate those latter two. To conflate atheism and materialism is more sociological and, yes, I can see that as useful peoplespeak. To conflate materialism and empiricism can cause philosophical problems that will be relevent to discussing your position on what is real and/or true. The terms materailism and empiricism are not in the same category. I do think many modern people, especially those who think the empiricism used in science is the only way to gain knowledge ALSO conflate empiricism and materialism. But I don't think we should copy their mistake. IOW yes, many people with think those two go together and it will function as people speak, but it is a real problematic conflation in my opinion.
Last edited by Karpel Tunnel on Tue Apr 23, 2019 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:43 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Theology is based on faith [without reason-rationality and proof], thus clings on dogmatically to impossibilities [i.e. God which is like a square-circle]. Theology is driven by an underlying subliminal desperate existential psychology to the extent SOME theists will even kill [murder, genocide] to defend their theism.

Yet one of the most interesting corollaries that develops from the hypothesis of value is its ability to present a feasible motivation mechanism for the necessity to voice unsought disagreement and contempt for a value system one disagrees with. Again, thanks for sharing your opinions, Prism.

Your hypothesis of value is not clear.
I had presented my definition of 'value' tied to survival.

You mentioned
Value
Truth and falsity are the two dynamic denominations of value inherent in the information of all existents as a primary “condition of being” from which value—often formulated as goods and evils—derives.


It would appear the above is related to the absolute Value of God i.e. the Absolute Moral Laws.

Instead of the ambiguous term 'value' why don't you refer the the Absolute Moral Laws of God's or otherwise.

In any case, such absolute value or absolute moral laws do not exist as real.

Btw, there is a specialty topic on the Moral Values, i.e. axiology.


Wiki wrote:Axiology (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value. It is either the collective term for ethics and aesthetics[1], philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of worth, or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The term was first used by Paul Lapie, in 1902,[2][3] and Eduard von Hartmann, in 1908.


Check with ThinkDr who is a "Professor of Value"
How and why the Hierarchy of Value formula is sound
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194809
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Anomaly654 » Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:07 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
I just don't know what to do with saying a chair or a stone or light is a truth or a bearer of truth. Truth is referential.

Probably prudent to note that I see truth as a sui generis entity whose existence in both minds and the information minds process, creates reference. So yes, the very nature of truth playing out in minds in union with the truth of external content is referential, correspondent, attracting, etc.

Truth as a principle of force maintains both particularities and their attributes, i.e., gives primary properties (shape, quantity, motion) and secondary (odor, color, taste) their own particular attributes and none else. Wittgenstien’s definition of a term as a “halo of related meanings” describes the force truth performs (in both factual and moral spheres), despite the fact he dismissed the notion that a quality we call “good” exists outside of good acts. The power of relationality is a product of truth’s dynamic. This is an example of what I see as the conundrum that we’ve become so used to describing things by the behaviors their truth content creates that we take the underlying cause for granted and speak of the world in terms of truth’s effects.

Descriptive truth plays out in the laws, rules and principles matter operates in and creates: facts. The truth of objects is easier to embrace conceptually than that of organics. Matter in its base state or configuration [wherever and whatever that is] is logically wholly or absolutely true and unchanging. I see James S. Saint’s affectance as information in its irreducible, absolute state if I understand his concept correctly. Information (so my hypothesis goes) forms material stuff, and matter in complexity attains mutability, but mutability is still only the changing of spatiotemporal position—true particles in constant motion giving minds the hard task of uncovering underlying truth in the midst of this sea of motion [existence], spitting out streams of information we bring together into harmonious [true-bearing] content in the mind. It’s truth in the makeup of minds that cause them to naturally seek harmonization, which is one of a thousand ways of saying we’re seeking truth. When we seek scientific organization, we’re naturally, without thinking about it, seeking the truth of objects via their relations, both empirical (facts) and non-empirical (concepts). Seems to me to not see the truth in trees and forests is missing the forest for the trees; the very relationality of the terms along with the facts that trees steadfastly retain their treeness and forests their forestness do so by virtue of the power truth imposes on existence/reality as I see it.

But edicts, rulings, bylaws, directives, policies, regulations, conventions, ethics, doctrines, and ideologies are products of the amalgam of descriptive and prescriptive truths. These suffer from actual falsification, which is peculiar only to human essence, what theists commonly refer to as the soul. Here, the term ‘value’ is more appropriate. I see why so many try to dismiss the prescriptive and move it to the realm of facts…factual existence, being wholly true, is much cleaner. Prescription is a distasteful mess, though its truth, when it does appear on the scene, is radiant and robust compared to the sterile, inert truth of the purely material.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Anomaly654 » Wed Apr 24, 2019 8:41 pm

Prismatic567 wrote: Your hypothesis of value is not clear.

So I'm often told.

I had presented my definition of 'value' tied to survival.

And I noted that this view of value, so stated, is entirely consistent with--and would be predicted by--the view of value I defend.

It would appear the above is related to the absolute Value of God i.e. the Absolute Moral Laws.

Instead of the ambiguous term 'value' why don't you refer the the Absolute Moral Laws of God's or otherwise.

Value in human minds is not clear cut and ambiguous by nature. The aim of the thread is not to discuss "the absolute moral laws of God or otherwise". The questions pertinent to the thread are,
1. Does truth require a mind?
2. If truth exists prior to human minds and the answer to #1 is yes, where could it have come from? If anyone holds the position that truth isn't mind-related I'd like to hear those arguments...haven't been able to find any on my own.

Of course that truth exists prior to minds is unproven, though logical evidence seems to suggest it does. The interesting question for me is, is the belief that 'truth did not exist until the existence of a human mind' formed from the prior position that 'no mind existed before the human mind' or from consideration of all the evidence? If the answer is from evidence, the next question might be is "from the evidence" based on prior assumptions or from and actual unbiased scrutiny of the evidence? It's difficult (probably impossible to do so wholly) to completely lay aside our presuppositions to grant unbiased consideration to an issue, isn't it?

In any case, such absolute value or absolute moral laws do not exist as real.

Okay. Thanks again for sharing your opinion.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:15 am

Anomaly654 wrote:Value in human minds is not clear cut and ambiguous by nature. The aim of the thread is not to discuss "the absolute moral laws of God or otherwise". The questions pertinent to the thread are,
1. Does truth require a mind?
2. If truth exists prior to human minds and the answer to #1 is yes, where could it have come from? If anyone holds the position that truth isn't mind-related I'd like to hear those arguments...haven't been able to find any on my own.

Of course that truth exists prior to minds is unproven, though logical evidence seems to suggest it does. The interesting question for me is, is the belief that 'truth did not exist until the existence of a human mind' formed from the prior position that 'no mind existed before the human mind' or from consideration of all the evidence? If the answer is from evidence, the next question might be is "from the evidence" based on prior assumptions or from and actual unbiased scrutiny of the evidence? It's difficult (probably impossible to do so wholly) to completely lay aside our presuppositions to grant unbiased consideration to an issue, isn't it?

Generally and conventionally truth, reality and fact are synonymous.

Philosophically I view the above variables as;

1. Reality is 'what is'
2. Truth and fact are the 'what is' [perspective 2] of the 'what is' [meta-perspective 1].

In both cases the above are leveraged on the human conditions [whole human not just mind].

The truth of reality is always inferred or abstracted from a specific human based Framework and System with its assumptions, processes, etc.
    For example scientific truths are based and confined to the human-agreed Scientific Framework and System with its Scientific Method, assumptions, peer review etc.
    Legal truths are confined to specific Legal Framework and Systems.
    Even common sense and conventional truth can be traced to specific Framework and System.
    Logical truths are subjected to the Logical Framework and System.
    Personal truths are the individual subjective beliefs which is recognized as unreliable.

Thus there is no truth that can stand alone without human intervention and consensus.

The question is how credible are the inferences from the above Framework and Systems.

As for "reality" the "what is" deliberated from a higher human perspective.
Reality is 'all there is" but this is still subjected to human intervention and consensus.
Scientific truth is limited to the Scientific Framework and System and higher level we have Philosophy of Science deliberating on the truth behind what is the Scientific Framework and System itself.
Thus is the philosophy as the encompassing field that deal with reality but then philosophy is still done by humans.
This is where we extend our knowledge to the a priori, i.e. nature not nurture.

Therefore there is nothing that can exists without any association [note not "dependent"] with the human conditions.

The only way that one [ a human nevertheless] can insist reality is independent and there are things independent of the human conditions is by a psychological compulsion to deal with the cognitive dissonance and to soothe the pains of being suspended if one do not come to any conclusion or certainty.

It is very natural for the human mind to be very bias to the idea there are things external to the human conditions, but the truth is one need to resist that, i.e. as Wittgenstein advised,
'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'
This statement is not a whim from Wittgenstein but a very heavily reflected philosophical proposition.

Point is, where one speaks of the ultimate, whatever is spoken is ultimately qualified to the human conditions.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Thu Apr 25, 2019 5:43 am

Anomaly654 wrote:Probably prudent to note that I see truth as a sui generis entity whose existence in both minds and the information minds process, creates reference. So yes, the very nature of truth playing out in minds in union with the truth of external content is referential, correspondent, attracting, etc.
I didn't get this. A few questions: 1) truth exists in minds and in information. Are chairs in minds or (only) information? Is it the experience/perception of the chair that is truth or the chair in itself? Is external reality a kind of hologram? (just to take a stab in the dark) 2) truth is in the minds and in the external content. This content is the chairs physical essence, say, and this creates a kind of resonance with our idea of the chair - each of these a kind of truth? (more of me guessing away)

Truth as a principle of force
Now truth is a principle of force. Not force, but a principle of it. It is also information and also inside the mind and outside the mind. Help me here.

maintains both particularities and their attributes, i.e., gives primary properties (shape, quantity, motion) and secondary (odor, color, taste) their own particular attributes and none else.
And here it seems that truth is causal or the source of qualities.

Wittgenstien’s definition of a term as a “halo of related meanings” describes the force truth performs (in both factual and moral spheres), despite the fact he dismissed the notion that a quality we call “good” exists outside of good acts. The power of relationality is a product of truth’s dynamic. This is an example of what I see as the conundrum that we’ve become so used to describing things by the behaviors their truth content creates that we take the underlying cause for granted and speak of the world in terms of truth’s effects.
I think we usually speak about truth in terms of its accuracy. Does it match what it refers to. This could be thought of intrumentally. Like does it give us a useful manuel for using, interacting with, predicting how things will act. Or sometimes in a more static way - does it hold up an accurate image.

My guess is I will understand this much better if you use specific examples of truths of different kinds, so I can follow this.

The truth of objects is easier to embrace conceptually than that of organics. Matter in its base state or configuration [wherever and whatever that is] is logically wholly or absolutely true and unchanging.
What are you adding to our knowledge by using true instead of real.

I see James S. Saint’s affectance as information in its irreducible, absolute state if I understand his concept correctly. Information (so my hypothesis goes) forms material stuff, and matter in complexity attains mutability, but mutability is still only the changing of spatiotemporal position—true particles in constant motion giving minds the hard task of uncovering underlying truth in the midst of this sea of motion [existence], spitting out streams of information we bring together into harmonious [true-bearing] content in the mind. It’s truth in the makeup of minds that cause them to naturally seek harmonization, which is one of a thousand ways of saying we’re seeking truth.
We seek truth, those who do, motivated by truth. (?)

When we seek scientific organization, we’re naturally, without thinking about it, seeking the truth of objects via their relations, both empirical (facts) and non-empirical (concepts). Seems to me to not see the truth in trees and forests is missing the forest for the trees; the very relationality of the terms along with the facts that trees steadfastly retain their treeness and forests their forestness do so by virtue of the power truth imposes on existence/reality as I see it.
Here I might use the term 'nature'. Trees have a specific nature. I find the word 'truth' here odd. Which is fine. Odd concepts can then offer new insights. But I am not sure yet what you are getting out of using truth rather than other terms.
Karpel Tunnel
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Apr 25, 2019 8:30 am

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
Anomaly654 wrote:Probably prudent to note that I see truth as a sui generis entity whose existence in both minds and the information minds process, creates reference. So yes, the very nature of truth playing out in minds in union with the truth of external content is referential, correspondent, attracting, etc.
I didn't get this. A few questions:
1) truth exists in minds and in information. Are chairs in minds or (only) information?
Is it the experience/perception of the chair that is truth or the chair in itself?
Is external reality a kind of hologram? (just to take a stab in the dark)
2) truth is in the minds and in the external content.
This content is the chairs physical essence, say, and this creates a kind of resonance with our idea of the chair - each of these a kind of truth? (more of me guessing away)


Instead of chairs, note Russell's table;

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.

Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.

The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.

Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
    Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls:
    Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God;
    sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.


It is obvious Russell acknowledged the common and conventional sense truths, i.e. there is a "real" table out there external to the self.

But then he dug deeper philosophically with reference to the 'table' and noted, there is the metaphysical truths of souls, the divine truths from Berkeley.

Then he stated Science tell us the table is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

So which truth is true ultimately and perhaps,
truly and perhaps there is no table at all.

The problem with the majority is they do not reflect philosophically and deeply, thus has the tendency to jump onto what is obvious, i.e. that things exist externally and independently.

The effective and optimal position is not to jump to conclusion and Russell stated;

Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;


The truth of reality is, reality is an emergence that rises spontaneously with the human conditions.

Here is a demo of spontaneous emergence model;



One will note the 3D concave mask emerged in spontaneity with human interaction from what is supposedly a convex mask. No matter how many times one blink, as a human one will always perceive a 3D concave mask.

The mask experiment involve the visual senses, but it can happen to the touch senses as well. Thus what you perceive and touch as a solid table is also an emergence but there could be another perspective it is not solid.

It is easy to understand the above when explained.
However the emergence of the table or monitor in front of you is along the same principles and model albeit more complex, difficult to explain and difficult for the majority to grasp.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Anomaly654 » Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:38 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:truth exists in minds and in information. Are chairs in minds or (only) information?..Is external reality a kind of hologram?.

Truth exists in information. Chairs and minds are modes of information. All organics (being animated) are technically “living information”, but I usually reserve the term for human minds. This presupposes there’s a real world of chairs, buildings and other minds out in the world whose information we receive and process representationally.

Is it the experience/perception of the chair that is truth or the chair in itself?

The experience of the chair is the information of the mind perceiving the information of the chair. Value is in information as a condition of existence, so from one angle the mind perceives just information, but the truth of each thing (perceiver and that being perceived) is the dynamic that produces what I call (correctly or not) the properties of truth—correspondence, right reference or relations, coherence, etc. So from one point of view the t – t union between mind and thing could be purely a value dynamic, from another it’s more dualistic: t – t is confirming information whose value is true. I’ve been wrestling with the notion of throwing information out and admit that everything is really just value in complex forms, but this seems intuitively awkward and goes beyond my purposes anyway. In this idea I seem to have reached the ‘road closed’ barricade at the end of my intellectual abilities.

I think we usually speak about truth in terms of its accuracy. Does it match what it refers to. This could be thought of intrumentally. Like does it give us a useful manuel for using, interacting with, predicting how things will act. Or sometimes in a more static way - does it hold up an accurate image.

Yes, and these would be natural examples of the things truth as an ontological feature of reality does. For clarity, after developing a headache trying to follow the way others use the terms “reality’ and “existence”, I came to understand reality as all that is and existence as the participation of individual things in that reality. Reality is what it is, existence is constantly changing and can be manipulated by minds. I can go with the flow if these definitions need modification to ease forward moving discussion.

When falsity enters the equation things get considerably more complicated, but it also adds higher levels of explication I think.

My guess is I will understand this much better if you use specific examples of truths of different kinds, so I can follow this.

Unsure if I have terminology right, but truth has only two kinds, descriptive or factual and prescriptive or normative (moral-ethical). Truth is one of two denominations of value, t and f. I posit from this that all goods and evils (both factual and moral) derive from some combination of true and false. Been called to task for assigning good and evil to the factual, which is normatively inert. But though it’s archaic the term still has applications—thinking of Aquinas’ use of evil in the factual sense when he described blindness as an evil (deprivation) of the good of sight.

The truth of matter is morally inert, prescript morally robust. The reason it’s hard to spot norms is that factual and normative information exists in an amalgam in organics by degrees. That it’s a lesser crime to kill a dog than a human suggests possible degrees of potency exist in prescriptive truth. (I’ve mulled over the idea that the division between intellectual operation and ‘garden variety’ intelligence of higher animals might be due to a further classification of truth to categories [class, genus, species?] of intrinsic and extrinsic respectively, but this notion is theology, not metaphysics.)

In his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals [1751], Hume states: "The final sentence, it is probable, which pronounces characters and actions amiable or odious, praise-worthy or blameable; that which stamps on them the mark of honour or infamy, approbation or censure; that which renders morality an active principle and constitutes virtue our happiness, and vice our misery; it is probable, I say, that this final sentence depends on some internal sense or feeling, which nature has made universal in the whole species". Value as an ontological feature of information seems to me to satisfy Hume’s observation and provides clarity to a number of other moral questions.

What are you adding to our knowledge by using true instead of real.

Don’t understand the question. True doesn’t replace. Real is still real. Also never looked at this as a goal of adding to knowledge, the hypothesis was developed as an attempt to satisfy or flesh out a particular theological problem.

Truth as a principle of force
Now truth is a principle of force. Not force, but a principle of it. It is also information and also inside the mind and outside the mind. Help me here.

Confusion is doubtless due my poor attention to articulation. Most of the time I wear my ‘bitchy retired tradesman’ hat. So when I sit down at the computer to work on my metaphysical hypothesis stuff I tend to drag the other into it. Add lack of formal education and short term memory commensurate with age and said problems emerge.

Truth is a force which creates principles, i.e., of conduct, measurement, analogy, logic, etc. I usually use the term dynamic because words like “force” and “energy” have been used in material descriptions so long they tend to not ‘stick’ well in abstract discussion. There are just so many words synonymous with dynamic; have to spread them around in interest of trying to communicate clearly as I can.
Value (which is mostly truth) is a condition of existence within information.
All that exists—being—is delineated by its ability to in-form a perceiving mind, thus being = information in its broadest sense. From this perspective, information so defined is the starting point of reality. Information forms (or at least appears to the intellect to form) a dualistic structure of reality. Abstract entities like minds and physical things like rocks are just different modes of information. In a realist setting, the value within the various modes (abstracta-concreta) and forms (particularizations within each mode) of information interact by means of (from a reductionist point of view) the complex value interactions of information in extension. The mind indignant at the mistreatment of an animal exemplifies the causal effect of prescriptive value disturbances ( t – f connections, where the causing of pain to said animal is a falsity (denial of the good of health, infliction of the evil of pain, etc.) and raises natural dissonance in the truth content of said mind and the t – t value state of soil and maple tree in the absorption of micronutrients the front lawn would be examples.

And here it seems that truth is causal or the source of qualities.

Yes.

We seek truth, those who do, motivated by truth. (?)

Yes. Value interactions as defined in this hypothesis seem able to account for all human behaviours.

I get into trouble trying to put too much into posts. Still, here's how the hypothesis breaks down:

Raw, unformed information at top, two kinds (factual and moral). Not sure why I thought different colored squares would be good representation of truth kinds. No one every accused me of having artistic skills.

Information presented as dual, Particularity (P) and quintessence (Q) and wholes reduced to "iotas" to contrast with "bits" of material or computer information. All particular things, minds, mountains, qualities, atoms, etc. are formed into iotas from raw information. Example, each piece of the information of an electron (mass, spin, etc.) is an iota of information. Each part (P and Q) of each iota exists in a value state. Only the Q of human souls can be falsified...the explanation for this is theological, but plays out in the real world and is thus empirical. Rape, when it occurs, happens in real events in time and space.

Minds processing propositions are amalgams of value interactions between intricately complex "informational bundles". Hope this helps.
Attachments
existence04a_2_chart.jpg
existence04a_2_chart.jpg (45.92 KiB) Viewed 5064 times
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:15 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
In his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals [1751], Hume states:

    "The final sentence, it is probable, which pronounces characters and actions amiable or odious, praise-worthy or blameable; that which stamps on them the mark of honour or infamy, approbation or censure; that which renders morality an active principle and constitutes virtue our happiness, and vice our misery; it is probable, I say, that this final sentence depends on some internal sense or feeling, which nature has made universal in the whole species".


Value as an ontological feature of information seems to me to satisfy Hume’s observation and provides clarity to a number of other moral questions.


I believe you interpreted Hume wrongly.
Hume is a pure empiricist, thus no room in him for any ontological consideration.

Note Hume very famous critique of 'cause and effect' as culminated from constant conjunctions, habits and customs.
To Hume, the ultimate basis of 'cause and effect' is psychological and not ontological.

It the same as the above.
Note I bolded "depends on some internal sense or feeling" which is ultimately psychological and not ontological.

Hume has no regard and respect for the existence of any ontological moral law, i.e. in his famous, "no ought from is."
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Prismatic567 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 7:31 am

Anomaly654 wrote:Truth exists in information. Chairs and minds are modes of information. All organics (being animated) are technically “living information”, but I usually reserve the term for human minds. This presupposes there’s a real world of chairs, buildings and other minds out in the world whose information we receive and process representationally.

The experience of the chair is the information of the mind perceiving the information of the chair.
Value is in information as a condition of existence, so from one angle the mind perceives just information, but the truth of each thing (perceiver and that being perceived) is the dynamic that produces what I call (correctly or not) the properties of truth—correspondence, right reference or relations, coherence, etc. So from one point of view the t – t union between mind and thing could be purely a value dynamic, from another it’s more dualistic: t – t is confirming information whose value is true. I’ve been wrestling with the notion of throwing information out and admit that everything is really just value in complex forms, but this seems intuitively awkward and goes beyond my purposes anyway. In this idea I seem to have reached the ‘road closed’ barricade at the end of my intellectual abilities.



There is no ontological basis for the world of chairs, building, etc.
These are all man-made things thus cannot be ontological but realities subjected to the human conditions.

Chairs are made of trees chopped by humans and sawn into pieces of wood by humans, and humanly designed and constructed by humans, joined with nails or glue.

A tree is merely a human concept of a certain arrangement of atoms and molecules.

The humanly defined molecules and atoms of the wood pieces and planks are made of sub-atomic particles.

There is no certainty as to what humanly defined sub-atomic particles are and their existence is totally dependent on human participation, i.e.
Wave function collapse, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse

So where is anything of reality down to the finest particle that is ontological and independent of the human conditions.

Can you [as human] ever convinced any one [human] that are ontological things that exist independent of the human conditions?


Note why people are driven to the ontological is due to some desperate psychological impulses [of degrees] within.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Anomaly654 » Sat Apr 27, 2019 3:46 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:I believe you interpreted Hume wrongly.
Hume is a pure empiricist, thus no room in him for any ontological consideration.

No, I'm aware of Hume's overall disposition toward science and things religious. You missed my point. It wasn't that Hume agreed with me, it's that his observation rings true--as do virtually all secular observations of how existence "works"--with the function of ontological value, as the proposed value mechanism is able to predict. Including 'no ought from is' (material information is static and inert, prescriptive information is vibrant and robust).

You are one of a curious lot of atheists today who, despite loudly proclaiming that there is no God nor objective moral standards, nonetheless spend incredible amounts of time in social media venues discussing God's inexistence and why there are no moral absolutes. This is curious; you seem to not grasp the nature of true impossibilities. Impossibilities are unable to provide information to minds because reality must have structured information in order for them to achieve apprehension. [The informational structure of reality alluded to in previous post is based in part on this principle btw.] Take the simple example of a three-sided circle. The mind readily grabs hold of "three-sided" and "circle" because each individually provides structured information to grasp. But put the terms together and the mind slams shut. "Three-sided circle" fails the requisite informational structure for apprehension of real things. A three-sided circle is a true impossibility.

In light of the above, your thread attempting to show the "impossibility" of God fails before it gets out of the gate by virtue of the hours upon hours discussion atheists have with theists about God. The idea of God provides sufficient informational structure to your and virtually everyone else's mind to discuss objectively. This is true of all abstract entities...except of course the impossible ones, whatever they might be. You remind me of Tolkein's Treebeard: "They come with fire! They come with axes! Gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning!! Destroyers and usurpers" What possible motivation could there be for atheists to constantly gnaw, bite and hack away at moral ideas they claim don't even exist? The ontological value mechanism is also able to provide reasonable answers. The secular term is cognitive dissonance theory, which in my world is caused by the presence of value within information itself.

It would work something like this...falsity is naturally adverse to truth. In reduction to single iotas of information only a simple repulsion exists between true components and false. As information builds in complexity, a sum of f - t (or t - f) disjunctions (in arguably 'locational configurations' with respect to the formation of prescriptive propositional content i.e., ideas, beliefs, etc.) within a sufficiently fragmentally falsified mind produces an accumulative repulsive force [dissonance]. Thus, various degrees of revulsion builds on the macro (conscious) level forming predispositions of opposition to true prescriptive propositions. While this holds for all--theist and atheist alike will hate certain prescriptive truths and embrace others, which explains much of the doctrinal infighting among just the Christian denominations--in the big questions (does God exist for example) one side is defending a truth and other trying to dismantle it. The hard part is, since God is silent on the subject, which side is the defender and which the usurper? This might be the 'hard problem' of value mechanics.

So how is it you spend so much time and energy refuting impossibilities like God and objective morality Prism?

Also, I'm aware that our 'steadfast' scientific notions seem to have gone sideways with the double slit experiment. But it's much too early in the game to make the kind of dogmatic statements you do: There is no certainty as to what humanly defined sub-atomic particles are and their existence is totally dependent on human participation It might be prudent to wait and see how knowledge of the quantum realm actually develops before using the little we now have as a club to beat those deplorable theists with.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Prismatic567 » Sun Apr 28, 2019 3:51 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:I believe you interpreted Hume wrongly.
Hume is a pure empiricist, thus no room in him for any ontological consideration.

No, I'm aware of Hume's overall disposition toward science and things religious. You missed my point. It wasn't that Hume agreed with me, it's that his observation rings true--as do virtually all secular observations of how existence "works"--with the function of ontological value, as the proposed value mechanism is able to predict. Including 'no ought from is' (material information is static and inert, prescriptive information is vibrant and robust).

Not sure what is your definition of ontological.
My definition of ontological is related to things that are independent of the human conditions.
Hume never agreed to such a meaning of ontological.
That is why he insisted there is no ontological 'ought' from empirical "is".

You are one of a curious lot of atheists today who, despite loudly proclaiming that there is no God nor objective moral standards, nonetheless spend incredible amounts of time in social media venues discussing God's inexistence and why there are no moral absolutes. This is curious; you seem to not grasp the nature of true impossibilities. Impossibilities are unable to provide information to minds because reality must have structured information in order for them to achieve apprehension. [The informational structure of reality alluded to in previous post is based in part on this principle btw.] Take the simple example of a three-sided circle. The mind readily grabs hold of "three-sided" and "circle" because each individually provides structured information to grasp. But put the terms together and the mind slams shut. "Three-sided circle" fails the requisite informational structure for apprehension of real things. A three-sided circle is a true impossibility.

In light of the above, your thread attempting to show the "impossibility" of God fails before it gets out of the gate by virtue of the hours upon hours discussion atheists have with theists about God. The idea of God provides sufficient informational structure to your and virtually everyone else's mind to discuss objectively. This is true of all abstract entities...except of course the impossible ones, whatever they might be. You remind me of Tolkein's Treebeard: "They come with fire! They come with axes! Gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning!! Destroyers and usurpers" What possible motivation could there be for atheists to constantly gnaw, bite and hack away at moral ideas they claim don't even exist? The ontological value mechanism is also able to provide reasonable answers. The secular term is cognitive dissonance theory, which in my world is caused by the presence of value within information itself.

It would work something like this...falsity is naturally adverse to truth. In reduction to single iotas of information only a simple repulsion exists between true components and false. As information builds in complexity, a sum of f - t (or t - f) disjunctions (in arguably 'locational configurations' with respect to the formation of prescriptive propositional content i.e., ideas, beliefs, etc.) within a sufficiently fragmentally falsified mind produces an accumulative repulsive force [dissonance]. Thus, various degrees of revulsion builds on the macro (conscious) level forming predispositions of opposition to true prescriptive propositions. While this holds for all--theist and atheist alike will hate certain prescriptive truths and embrace others, which explains much of the doctrinal infighting among just the Christian denominations--in the big questions (does God exist for example) one side is defending a truth and other trying to dismantle it. The hard part is, since God is silent on the subject, which side is the defender and which the usurper? This might be the 'hard problem' of value mechanics.

So how is it you spend so much time and energy refuting impossibilities like God and objective morality Prism?

Also, I'm aware that our 'steadfast' scientific notions seem to have gone sideways with the double slit experiment. But it's much too early in the game to make the kind of dogmatic statements you do: There is no certainty as to what humanly defined sub-atomic particles are and their existence is totally dependent on human participation It might be prudent to wait and see how knowledge of the quantum realm actually develops before using the little we now have as a club to beat those deplorable theists with.

Nope I am not any curious non-theists [btw, don't favor the term 'atheists'].

Why I am so concerned with theism is due to a high level of empathy and compassion in reaction to the terrible evil and violence brought forth by SOME theists in the past, present and will commit in the future.

I posted this somewhere;

    Why I am so involved in countering the existence of God is because many theists had committed terrible evil and violent acts against humanity in the name of or as commanded by God.

    My definition of 'evil':
    Evil is the essence of any human act or thought that is net-negative to the well being of the individual, others and humanity.

    DNA/RNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil and violence acts.
    Unfortunately a certain percentile [conservatively 20%*] of all humans are born with an active tendency to commit evil acts ranging in various degrees.
    *why? this need to be discussed further.

    I believe ALL evil acts and violence in the World must be addressed and resolved ASAP. I have discussed this generally.

    To be effective in problem solving, one need to break down whatever the problem, in this case evil, into its smallest units and search for various patterns, e.g. the fishbone technique.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishikawa_diagram

    One person cannot address ALL the evil potential of the World from all sources.

    Whilst not a Buddhist, I have adopted one of the Boddhisattva's vow re extending empathy and compassion to all living persons and things. Thus when one see so much sufferings, as a concern citizen of humanity one must strive to contribute in the most effective way possible.

    This is why the best I can do is to focus on what I am capable to contribute, i.e. religious-related evil. I have competent knowledge in Philosophy of Evil plus Philosophy of Religion. This is why I am 'localizing' my effort re evil to 'religion' and not in areas like politics, etc. which I do not have competence.

    Since most of the religious evil acts are related or commanded by God, getting rid of the illusory idea of God will eliminate all God-based evil and violent acts.

The worst ongoing trend of a God driven evil and violent acts is this;

The above trend has the potential to exterminate the human species when these extremists get access to cheap and easily available WMDs [nuclear and biological]. They have nothing to lose since either way they will end up in Paradise with eternal life. The killing of all infidels and their kind [with consensus] will grant them instant passport to Paradise with eternal life [for some 72 virgins].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2417
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: Refute this idea of truth please

Postby Anomaly654 » Thu May 02, 2019 5:01 pm

A few posts back I said,
Moral attributes are non-empirical.

To which KT replied:
Some philosophers would argue with that.

My reasoning for this idea is developed partly from “Body & Soul” (Moreland and Rae, 2000) in which they argue for substance dualism. One of their strongest arguments imo is their distinction between property things and substances, which I take to stand for inorganic and organic entities. They offer as primary separation between the two, “…a crucial distinction between the structures of a substance and a property thing: the internal structure of a substance is a set of internal relations, and the structure of a property thing is a set of external relations.”

Though Moreland and Rae use different terminology, this set of features describes what I’d call ‘informational dualism”, i.e., inorganics possessing only descriptive value or information and organics an amalgam of descriptive and prescriptive.

The idea is that the soul is a single thing that conforms or bonds to the material configuration, in reduction to its micro-level state. This prescriptive truth dynamic is often described in theological circles as the ‘animating principle’. The graphic posted earlier illustrates this as a one-to-one attachment of material and prescriptive iotas of information. Following the organization of the first, the soul-body graphic below demonstrates the dualism of disparate kinds of value-information. Bonded together into a single organism or person, the informational structure of the whole seems consistent with the idea of a single entity of conjoined internal-external relations. Am not under the illusion this is what Moreland and Rae have in mind in their defence of substance dualism, just my adaptation of their base ideas into an informational format.

The authors describe external relations of property things as not entering into the nature of the parts and the parts as indifferent to relations, where substance is what it is by virtue of the relations between its parts. This rings true in informational dualism because the particularity of the soul in the P-Q organization is unfalsifiable—the soul remains a single, same identity—while Q, being fragmentally falsifiable on a micro level, contributes this corruption by its internal relations to the whole. The whole remains the same thing but its moral and physical “flavour” changes by virtue of these internal value relations.

The human soul is arguably falsifiable by improper choice. This isn’t very controversial on a large scale—Joe ignores warnings that drugs are dangerous, partakes anyway, eventually becomes addicted. Addiction is a falsification of the good of mental and physical health with respect to its perfection. Most would likely accept the common sense notion that Joe’s choice played a role in his falsification/addiction. Addiction has both physical and mental correlations which I believe can be traced back to changes in value states. Thus, addiction is very much a “spiritual disease” whose effects show in both mental and physical spheres.

That a person retains identity despite the constant replacement of physical parts suggests the internal relations of the person (soul) are maintained while material external relations operate in constant restructuring, i.e., elimination and change of particularity (P) of micro level parts in order to maintain its properties (Q) and thus its status as a property thing. Particular cells either die naturally (apoptosis) or from trauma. Trauma might be seen as an end result of falsification—by environmental or outside affects, but hypothetically also for internal value changes re the ‘falsified operation’ demonstrated in the graphic in the lower cluster of organic information where the falsification of the soul’s Q affects on a micro level proper operation of juxtaposed components within soul and body. Apoptosis might be described as the property thing performing its natural machine-like rebuilding process, while death by trauma as unplanned (non-natural) falsification, against which biological repair functions are called to action.

The aforementioned preservation of identity despite the body’s material state or soul’s Q state of change suggests steadfast truth value of the soul’s P or identity as a particular thing. But the change of moral character for better or worse within the particular person suggests the mutability of the overall value state in the soul’s Q or essence.

From the above it appears to me that moral properties are not in actions themselves. Rather, degrees of falsification of living entities are made known to a perceiver representationally in interpretation of material events within states of affairs. The punch thrown in anger is from a material point of view is merely the exchange of spatial and temporal positions of the particles of A’s face and B’s fist. There’s no ought to be found in the exchange itself. Acts (air waves in recognizable patterns interpreted as anger in B’s voice, cries of pain and blood flowing from A’s mouth) by living organisms are interpreted for their value content by the value-bearing information of intellects in value-reactions to those circumstances. Just to clarify, it would have been better stated for me to claim “non-material” than “non-empirical”, though my experience suggests not all would accept representation in perception as empirical.

In graphic below, normal operation indicates micro level true - true (t - t) juxtapositional connections of soul-soul, body-body and soul-body, a wholly true or perfect operation. Falsification demonstrates possible defects in operation. This is a micro level and fragmentary illustration; it would theoretically take considerable falsification of the soul before these changes would begin to show forth in mental, physical, emotional, etc. contexts in the person on a macro, everyday level.
Attachments
value_connect01a_3.jpg
value_connect01a_3.jpg (38.11 KiB) Viewed 2941 times
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users