A computer doesn’t have the essential functionality of mind that a human does, it does not perceive. This is besides the point and another debate, all I wish to ascertain here is if our current terminology is lacking [using all our faculties]; what is a subjective truth if not a tangent on a former objective truth? Hence we truly only have derived and original truths, this slight difference in conceptualisation takes us out of the mire that philosophy is currently in ~ and by extension science also.
The memory is a useful function in a computer as it is in a brain, though it does have to be reassessed when new or conflicting information arises, its just like how in science you have to readjust your experiments and method for the same reason.
I think original info is ascertained by the imagination on a regular basis e.g. at some point someone had two of something and two of something else then added them together and math was born. Prior to that there would have been no memory of such a function. Now extend that to every perception and discovery in human history ~ its quite a lot eh!
No that’s what you’re saying isn’t it? I think all things have an eidos, an information set to wit their holographic existence derives. My only problem is understanding if that is purely of the material in origins ~ as we know it is not once we have developed, because non-material aspects of our eidos occur most all the time. I.E if our reality map transcends the material in its entirety [does steven hawkin transcend his form? i’d say so!]
James S Saint
Is my Occam’s razor too sharp for you! I agree that in some fields it is useful to have the more expansive descriptions.
Here I am attempting to correlate the terminology with the essential meaning, such that objective truths may be arived at. By bringing everything into two fundamental categories it brings our perception/understanding more concisely to the objective truth. After all, if we could do precise experiments and philosophical processes/mapping etc, there would in most cases only be a single category; that of objective truth…
Naturally there are more sophisticated areas which are too subtle or metaphoric for such method, but first we need sets of objective truths to use as a measure against or as foundations for them.
Sure but the point here is that they are derivative of an original objective truth if we [could] follow the line down. Language and other symbolisms, holisms etc belong to something, the computer/brain has inputs composed of derived and objective truths.
When we change the terminology by using terms like subjective or perhaps ’literal’ it makes the whole thing vague and we don’t know what to believe, if anything. Yet if we ascribe a given amount of potential and derived truth then there becomes a necessity to find the truth, to develop method, to seek. This has to be better than simply giving up all hope as ‘subjectivity’ provides.
Well I just have to show that using the terms ‘derivative’ and ‘original’ are more accurate than the somewhat vague terms/meanings of the subjective and objective. By using the former terms we are then faced with only having the option to produce the method to the derivatives in the hierarchy, as opposed to coming to a full stop as we often do now e.g. saying ‘we cant know anything’.
An idea cannot come from nothing. …if it did would it not then be objective?
The case has yet to be made that derivative and original are meaningful terms to apply in the sense you are doing: that there is a logical basis grounding all ideas. In your reply you take a hierarchy as a given; I think that’s jumping the gun. All you have is a circular argument.
There doesn’t need to be a logical basis to ‘all’ ideas, imaginative ideas can be injective, and tangents may occur along the line of inquiry. Like a river in every case there is a possibly way to find the route and the source of all such meanderings. Admittedly we probably cannot match the path with an equal method, which is a flaw in the method not the philosophy. I would go so far as to say that scientific theories and the subsequent updating thereof are purely an update of the methodology, as opposed to the eventual truth/origins, and that doesn’t mean there are different truths.
There is causality, given the necessary instrumentation of measure we could follow thoughts [which have a neuronal basis] to memory locations and to other areas of the brain, then on to the sensory inputs [like inputs into a computer] derived from physical information. You would need to show that such causal lines do not exist in order to show the terms are meaningless, or show that they belong only to the subject ~ yet we know anyone’s thoughts can be followed through in the exact same manner [if we have the instrumentation].
We cannot have a zero basis; if there are no derivatives there is no way to arrive at an idea. If the derivatives were purely in the mind of the subject, there would be no way to correlate that with another subject, yet we do that all the time. Either way I would expect an idea to be either directly representative of something or derived of other info indirectly.
Take a crossword puzzle. You have a list of questions. Once you get one answer, that helps you with letters for the other answers, and from a few initial answers you can fill out the mesh to a coherent, completed crossword. But there is no one original question. Different people will have different starting points.
But different people have different thought patterns. Some discover related facts in the reverse order to others; some arrive at the same conclusions from wildly different initial assumptions, and others share a starting point and end up at diametrically opposed conclusions.
That doesn’t mean that there is one ultimate original thought. Any given thought might be original or derived.
When is there not a source? Even the imagination has sources, its just that we have the ability to be subjective, as if there is a stream of input, to which we can hold in the mind [memory] and compare. This may create a subjective set of info and ideas, but they all derive of something, unless you think we can create new ideas not based on input? [which would be great imho].
.
That’s just holistic thinking, nice example of subjective thinking there but it doesn’t deny that in many cases there are origins, in fact every aspect of the crossword has origins, the design, the questions and the links between words [letters] have all be preconceived.
.
.
So we have different ways of reading sets of information, especially when the elements of them are disparate. If you have say a set of facts about the solar system from our observational perspective, and they are shown to be wrong from a more universal view, this shows how method is so important but not that the original facts are wrong as the original facts had yet to be ascertained.
I would think that in most cases the facts remain the same irrespective of how we come about them.
.
I would think all thoughts are derived? Except in rare exception when we pull an idea out of the blue -so to say, but I am sure you would find that idea doubtful.
Then all derivatives have origins [TM] either objective or in ideas based on them e.g. a cube is derived from square shaped objects, thus the cube is an origin which is arrived at in pure thought.
I mean, that there is A Source. An original truth. Your OP?
I would think all thoughts are derived? Except in rare exception when we pull an idea out of the blue -so to say, but I am sure you would find that idea doubtful.
Then all derivatives have origins [TM] either objective or in ideas based on them e.g. a cube is derived from square shaped objects, thus the cube is an origin which is arrived at in pure thought.
[/quote]
In that case, I’m afraid you’ve lost me. Is the original truth an original truth, or derived?
I agree that in some fields it is useful to have the more expansive descriptions.