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.
