Thoughts on truth

[Himster]

You are right, factually it doesn't make it true, but it makes it a truth to that person who believes in it, no? They believe in it, and therefore it is true to them.

An example would be if person X believed in the Tooth Fairy - then to them the Tooth Fairy is true, granted it isn't - but to them it is.

Just because our perception of truth is necessarily relative that doesn't make truth subjective. It doesn't matter if someone believes in the tooth fairy, the belief has no bearing on the truth of the matter.
Truth exists external to our senses, it isn't caused by our senses, solipsism is a ridiculed position for a reason.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Yes, and to an extent I am agreeing with you - what is true is true no matter what, but people are allowed to believe certain things aren't they, meaning it is true for them.

Aye, the tooth fairy is not true, but when you're a kid and you believe in it then you think it is true, therefor for you it is - even if it isn't for other people.

[atheniandp]

Truth exists external to our senses,

Hence why empiricism alone is an inadequate theory of knowledge.

[Himster]

Hence why empiricism alone is an inadequate theory of knowledge.

And thus sophistry enters into our collective psyches, so many of us are desperate for "truth" any "truth" regardless of it's source.

[Justice and Mercy]

'Bout a month late.

Why are you so sure?

Because I'm sitting in one right now. For me to be sitting in a chair, it must first exist.

I'm not so sure that what appears in that sensorial exprience is true, in fact, I'm not even sure if that sensorial experience is actually true.

What does the word "sure" even mean to you? Having divined that information from God himself?

I don't deny that experience, I doubt it's validity.

Why? Why is doubt the given? What does "valid" mean to you? What means of proof might convince you? Are you asking for proof's proof?

You're trying to look at human knowledge from outside of human knowledge. You're trying to put yourself in the position of some kind of cosmic observer who knows all by no particular means.

Fact is: Knowledge is knowledge of something gathered by some means. No cosmic observers, no divined knowledge.

[Miracles]

According to developments in quantum physics , everything that we see, touch and feel(matter) is not real. What is real is only consciousness.......

I don't get it too why they said that. I know matters are just low vibrating energy but to say they are not real....I know about that in the quantum level our expectation creates the reality but how can more than 1 person see the same thing....I mean how can there be consistency? If there is consistency wouldn't that make matter real?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adrwP7m4gIY

It is NOT new age. it's quantum physics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kiqo...eature=related

[Diamat]

But consciousness does not exist for itself. It must necessarily interact with things external to itself. These things, because they are experienced, are real. If they are not real, you wouldn't have experienced them, now would you?

[Justice and Mercy]

According to developments in quantum physics ,

...ugh.

everything that we see, touch and feel(matter) is not real. What is real is only consciousness.......

How have they discovered this? Are the tools they use to come to observe subatomic particles not real?

When listening to scientists, physicists especially, you must keep in mind that they tend to approach problems like this clumsily, preferring to make things sound mind-blowing and extreme.

To say "matter is just low-vibrating energy" presupposes that matter exists.

To begin know this: The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics is dead wrong. It is illogical and senseless.

Science is in serious danger due to the complete disintegration of philosophy. A simple explanation of what logic is, and how we know it, would suffice to sweep away such nonsense as "Matter doesn't exist... yet is of certain properties."

[Miracles]

what is interesting is that many of the findings or conclusions in the theory that emphasizes consciousness resonates with me.

Past experience has taught me that consciousness don't stand apart. If something has got consciousness then it is part of everything else that has got consciousness. Those 'eccentric' quantum physicists put it as we are not different consciousness separated and excluded from one another but we are one consciousness with subjective experience.

My past experience hasn't convinced me to that extreme but all I'm saying is that consciousness don't stand apart for sure and that our consciousness is not limited by distance nor time(it can go back and forth within time and make distance seemingly irrelevant). if it seemed to be bounded by distance it was only because we were for the most part only interested in knowing our surroundings mostly. I mean the mind goes where our focus is.

All in all I have some hope in the development in quantum physics and I hope the whole society and civilizations could benefit from its findings, not to harm people but to bring progress and understanding. To make a better world. Though I'm also pessimistic judging by how primitive most of us are still and how very primitive many of our leaders are.

[Justice and Mercy]

what is interesting is that many of the findings or conclusions in the theory that emphasizes consciousness resonates with me.

Past experience has taught me that consciousness don't stand apart. If something has got consciousness then it is part of everything else that has got consciousness. Those 'eccentric' quantum physicists put it as we are not different consciousness separated and excluded from one another but we are one consciousness with subjective experience.

My past experience hasn't convinced me to that extreme but all I'm saying is that consciousness don't stand apart for sure and that our consciousness is not limited by distance nor time(it can go back and forth within time and make distance seemingly irrelevant). if it seemed to be bounded by distance it was only because we were for the most part only interested in knowing our surroundings mostly. I mean the mind goes where our focus is.

All in all I have some hope in the development in quantum physics and I hope the whole society and civilizations could benefit from its findings, not to harm people but to bring progress and understanding. To make a better world. Though I'm also pessimistic judging by how primitive most of us are still and how very primitive many of our leaders are.

Your past experience, which is probably you misinterpreting data, has no place in quantum physics, and any physicist who tells you that we share a consciousness is a quack New Age mystic taking advantage of scientific clumsiness.

[Miracles]

Your past experience, which is probably you misinterpreting data, has no place in quantum physics, and any physicist who tells you that we share a consciousness is a quack New Age mystic taking advantage of scientific clumsiness.

Not actually I have concluded it was not me misinterpreting data at all.
To say so would be me misinterpreting data.

My past experience didn't tell me we shared consciousness but all consciousness is connected with one another. I'm just saying there seems to be a natural law that connect every consciousness with one another irrespective of distance and even time. The mind isn't bounded with distance nor it is bounded with time.

I have some hope for quantum physics to teach the world and to teach our children about the connected nature of the mind and consciousness. Mankind needs a paradigm shift if we want to survive the crises which are coming due to our past mistakes. We cannot afford to stay primitive and primal.

[Diamat]

Not actually I have concluded it was not me misinterpreting data at all.
To say so would be me misinterpreting data.

My past experience didn't tell me we shared consciousness but all consciousness is connected with one another. I'm just saying there seems to be a natural law that connect every consciousness with one another irrespective of distance and even time. The mind isn't bounded with distance nor it is bounded with time.

What? Natural law? How do you know this? What's your line of reasoning?

I have a quick test for you, in order to demonstrate that the mind is very much bound. Drink a whole bottle of Tequila and see what happens to your mind. Deprive yourself of oxygen and see what happens to your mind. The list goes on...

[atheniandp]

And thus sophistry enters into our collective psyches, so many of us are desperate for "truth" any "truth" regardless of it's source.

Let's not cherry pick here, Himster. Sophism thus enters our individual psyches.

If you really want to be stubborn, then claiming knowledge of your own existence (let alone anything else) can rightfully be called sophism.

I'm curious as to what you think the sources of truth are.

[Morkonan]

...

To summarize
1. Any definition of truth can not be true as language in istelf can never be true.
2. What you see is closer to the truth, but our senses don't describe something perfectly.

"Truth" can not exist in a vacuum. It must be qualified.

With each instance of claimed "Truth" is a modifier, an implied or directly stated object of "truth." One can certainly have "absolute truth" in that context, within a certain communication medium. For example:

"It is true that I am sitting in a chair."

This statement is absolutely true. But, there is an implied context shared in language, culture and intent, here. My assumption in that statement is that you understand the qualities of "chair" to a sufficient degree to render the statement "true" when you interpret it. Similarly, I assume you understand the rest of the words.

But, for someone that can't read English, that statement has no value other than as a curiosity piece. In that context, the statement is neither true nor false. Because of that, "truth" depends on certain shared concepts. Within a context of shared concepts, there can be truth.

There is no platonic "Truth." There is no realm where there is an absolute truth. And, within our own contextual realm of communication, there is no acceptable absolute truth, but there is a generally understood concept of "truth" within this realm.

"I am sitting in a chair."

That statement is true, within the bounds of its intent. I do not make that statement with the intent of declaring that my concept of "chair", "sitting" or even "I" are universal. They are not. In fact, it is assumed that I am referring to the broadest allowable definition for each of those words. Otherwise, I would have further qualified those words with more modifiers, more descriptive language and more precise detail. Even had I written a treatise on my own chair sitting practices, encompassing several volumes, the implications would still be the same - I am relying on a medium of communication, language, that carries with it certain understood principles. One of those is that there are certain allowances for individual interpretation that are understood by all communicating parties. Otherwise, we'd never be able to adequately or efficiently communicate even the simplest thoughts and actions. The concept of "language" in this context is that it is only a medium of communication between two or more rational beings, it is not direct communication. There is no such medium available to us.

Because there are acceptable inaccuracies in the act of communication and because these are mutually shared contrivances, a completely shared communicated "Truth" can not exist. But, in the context of a shared expression of the idea of "Truth" within a shared language, one can exist that is "good enough" to be defined as such.

[Justice and Mercy]

"Truth" can not exist in a vacuum. It must be qualified.

With each instance of claimed "Truth" is a modifier, an implied or directly stated object of "truth." One can certainly have "absolute truth" in that context, within a certain communication medium. For example:

"It is true that I am sitting in a chair."

This statement is absolutely true. But, there is an implied context shared in language, culture and intent, here. My assumption in that statement is that you understand the qualities of "chair" to a sufficient degree to render the statement "true" when you interpret it. Similarly, I assume you understand the rest of the words.

But, for someone that can't read English, that statement has no value other than as a curiosity piece. In that context, the statement is neither true nor false. Because of that, "truth" depends on certain shared concepts. Within a context of shared concepts, there can be truth.

There is no platonic "Truth." There is no realm where there is an absolute truth. And, within our own contextual realm of communication, there is no acceptable absolute truth, but there is a generally understood concept of "truth" within this realm.

"I am sitting in a chair."

That statement is true, within the bounds of its intent. I do not make that statement with the intent of declaring that my concept of "chair", "sitting" or even "I" are universal. They are not. In fact, it is assumed that I am referring to the broadest allowable definition for each of those words. Otherwise, I would have further qualified those words with more modifiers, more descriptive language and more precise detail. Even had I written a treatise on my own chair sitting practices, encompassing several volumes, the implications would still be the same - I am relying on a medium of communication, language, that carries with it certain understood principles. One of those is that there are certain allowances for individual interpretation that are understood by all communicating parties. Otherwise, we'd never be able to adequately or efficiently communicate even the simplest thoughts and actions. The concept of "language" in this context is that it is only a medium of communication between two or more rational beings, it is not direct communication. There is no such medium available to us.

Because there are acceptable inaccuracies in the act of communication and because these are mutually shared contrivances, a completely shared communicated "Truth" can not exist. But, in the context of a shared expression of the idea of "Truth" within a shared language, one can exist that is "good enough" to be defined as such.

Are we discussing scribbles on a screen or words? Vibrations in the air or words? When I say "I am sitting in a chair" that is a statement of meaning, which at this moment is absolutely true regardless of what language the listener speaks. They may or may not understand my statement, there may be no one around, it remains absolutely true all the same. It's a definite statement of definite meaning.

[Morkonan]

Are we discussing scribbles on a screen or words? Vibrations in the air or words? When I say "I am sitting in a chair" that is a statement of meaning, which at this moment is absolutely true regardless of what language the listener speaks. They may or may not understand my statement, there may be no one around, it remains absolutely true all the same. It's a definite statement of definite meaning.

It is true until it is communicated.

What if I believe a chair is a large cylinder filled with water? Then, to me, your statement would likely be false.

[Justice and Mercy]

It is true until it is communicated.

My saying "this is a chair" wouldn't change that fact.

What if I believe a chair is a large cylinder filled with water? Then, to me, your statement would likely be false.

Then we wouldn't be referring to the same concept. That the sound I make when I say "chair" brings a different concept to YOUR mind doesn't change the fact that what I'm referring to is, in fact, a chair.

When we say words we're referring to concepts, not to sounds or scribbles.

The idea that certainty exists only within a "communication medium" puts the representation in the place of what is represented.

[Morkonan]

...Then we wouldn't be referring to the same concept. That the sound I make when I say "chair" brings a different concept to YOUR mind doesn't change the fact that what I'm referring to is, in fact, a chair.

When we say words we're referring to concepts, not to sounds or scribbles.

The idea that certainty exists only within a "communication medium" puts the representation in the place of what is represented.

In order for us to communicate, we must share the same concepts. If you say "chair" and I don't know what that sequence of sounds is supposed to mean, you haven't communicated anything to me, much less "truth." To you, the statement is "true." To me, it's gibberish.

If someone say's "I have found truth through religion" and another understands the words well enough to decipher the intent, they can still believe it's a form of "gibberish" because for them, no truth could possibly be revealed through "religion." If someone stated "I have found truth through a toaster", it'd have the same effect on them. They don't share the same concept of "religion" and it is impossible for them to understand the speaker's "truth."

Amongst those that share the same language and culture, there's a margin of allowable error within interpretation. It is understood between communicators that when using a particular medium of communication, the medium itself has rules that help minimize error. This is called "grammar." But, there is no "grammar" mechanism that rules over thought. (For the purpose of this discussion.) Thoughts can't be directly communicated, they must be communicated within a medium that has grammar, which helps to minimize error, and that act will have the most success at communicating a more accurate interpretation of thought if there is a shared culture between communicator and recipient.

A couple of days ago, an English speaker from Great Britain was communicating with me, an English speaker from the United States, a particular thought that included "toffs" and "champers." Not sharing their culture, the sentence was unintelligible. Any truth that it may have contained was absent.

We did not share the same culture, though we shared what could be called an acceptable margin of error for communication (English and very similar grammar). But, because we did not share the same culture, communication broke down and was useless. Likely, if the reverse was possible, those who shared the same culture but did not share the same language might be able to communicate within a tenuous network of cultural grammar, if such was possible, but would probably find frequent stumbling blocks when whatever medium they used wasn't suitable for the task.

I know what you intend to mean when you say "chair." I have an understanding of what our shared language and culture considers to be an acceptable margin of error for the definition of "chair." So, I can interpret the intent behind your sentence - You are sitting on a device that I can safely assume is what our culture has manufactured for sitting on.

But, start discussing certain very personal concepts or notions that are considered "absolutes" and in order for me to understand your exact intent, we may need to have something more than just a shared culture and agreed upon set of grammar.

If I am speaking to an old friend who I have known closely for 25 years, I am outside of the boundaries of a shared culture or agreed upon grammar. I've entered into another realm where my knowledge of the person and our shared experience helps me interpret their meaning. I am a much better translator of their spoken thought because of this. Even then, I can not translate it exactly, as they feel it and say it. But, I can get closer to a "true" translation than I can with someone who I can only rely on a shared grammar and culture.

What about a lover or wife? With that sort of personal intimacy, my ability to translate their thoughts from speech reaches another level. I am more able to understand an acceptable "exact" meaning from what they say and do, if my own emotional involvement does not cloud the issue.

However, no matter how intimate, I can not receive their thoughts directly. They must still pass through a medium and certain ideal conditions must exist for me to be able to interpret them with the highest possible chance for accuracy.

Return to "truth." A word which is absolute, with no mistake for attribution allowable - What absolutes does our shared language and culture allow for? Very few and, even then, they're only allowable when being recognized as generally true within certain conditions. However, in this thread, we are speaking of "ultimate truth." We have required the truth to be completely absolute and to be communicated in the most basic of mediums with the simplest understandings.

That is not possible. We can not have "ultimate truth" within this medium of communication. Even in extremely intimate mediums, where communicators are as close to each other in shared interpretation as possible, we can not communicate effectively enough to truly exchange "truth." Here, all we can do is set as stringent a margin for error as we can and require that a shared understanding of the notion of "truth" be understood amongst those who wish to offer same. In this framework, we can get as close as possible to establishing an "ultimate truth", but it will be a very tenuous definition and only applicable within a very narrow set of restrictions. What sort of "ultimate truth" could that possibly be,taken outside of this sort of environment? Not a very useful one...

Why "Philosophy?" Philosophy is an extremely difficult discipline. Outside of this realm, those of us who are uninitiated have only the most basic concepts to use for understanding philosophical discussions. But, within the discipline of Philosophy, philosophers have agreed upon an even more stringent set of grammar and a deeper set of cultural language in order to better facilitate communication and the sharing of certain concepts. Every discipline where intense study of the subject is necessary is like this. Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics.. these are disciplines that have also constructed their own frameworks for discussion that help facilitate communication and fill in the gaps where shared basic grammar and culture do not suffice.

Where is the discipline of "Truth" and what sort of mechanisms would it create to facilitate a medium of communication?

Pardon the verbosity, but it's a complex subject, dealing with absolutes.

[Justice and Mercy]

In order for us to communicate, we must share the same concepts.

That's true, and that's precisely what makes communication between different languages possible.

If you say "chair" and I don't know what that sequence of sounds is supposed to mean, you haven't communicated anything to me, much less "truth." To you, the statement is "true." To me, it's gibberish.

This is precisely the idea that I'm trying to dispel, here. The statement IS true, whether or not you understand it.

A couple of days ago, an English speaker from Great Britain was communicating with me, an English speaker from the United States, a particular thought that included "toffs" and "champers." Not sharing their culture, the sentence was unintelligible. Any truth that it may have contained was absent.

This means nothing regarding truth. The communication of it, maybe, but not truth itself.

Further, the sentence was likely NOT unintelligible. You probably had a general idea of what those things are simply through context.

That is not possible. We can not have "ultimate truth" within this medium of communication.

And THIS is why I'm trying to dispel the ideas seen throughout this post. To begin, "truth" doesn't depend on the medium of communication, or even communication, or even knowledge.

That which is true, is true, regardless of who knows it (if anyone), how it's known, or if the knowledge is shared at all, never mind how.

Pardon the verbosity, but it's a complex subject, dealing with absolutes.

And I apologize for replying to such a barebones representation of your post, but the points answered are antecedent to the rest.

[Morkonan]

That's true, and that's precisely what makes communication between different languages possible.

But, it doesn't make "precise" communication possible. It makes communication possible that has an acceptable level of ambiguity. Here, we are talking about absolutes, with no possibility of ambiguity or misunderstood meaning.

This is precisely the idea that I'm trying to dispel, here. The statement IS true, whether or not you understand it.

What do you mean by "true?" True to who? (Rhetorical, as I'll cover it further, below.)

This means nothing regarding truth. The communication of it, maybe, but not truth itself.

And, here we come to the crux of the matter - You are insisting that there is an absolute, archetypal, Platonic Truth, yes? Such a truth is self-evident, ideal, existing without the need for further interpretation, yes?

Further, the sentence was likely NOT unintelligible. You probably had a general idea of what those things are simply through context.

The possibility exists for an acceptable understanding, but one that is agreed is not complete, due to the medium. For normal use, this is just fine. But, for "absolutes", it's just not possible. I'd need a wire that hooked me up directly to your brain and pumped your thoughts and experiences into my thinkin' tool and even then, I may not fully experience and understand your "Absolute Truth" unless I was you.

And THIS is why I'm trying to dispel the ideas seen throughout this post. To begin, "truth" doesn't depend on the medium of communication, or even communication, or even knowledge.

That which is true, is true, regardless of who knows it (if anyone), how it's known, or if the knowledge is shared at all, never mind how.

And this relies on an absolute, Platonic, idealized "Truth" that exists out there, somewhere, which is self-evident and requires no interpretation. You insist this thing exists? You insist that both you and I, viewing the very same "Truth", will interpret it in exactly the same fashion, regardless of our cultural heritage, social influences or even our own personal experiences? This is the truth that you are arguing in favor of existing, correct?

And I apologize for replying to such a barebones representation of your post, but the points answered are antecedent to the rest.

Understood. I am sometimes unnecessarily long-winded.

My point is this - No such platonic truth exists that is capable of being fully communicated through the imperfect medium of language. It is a once-removed medium and the acknowledgement of some sort of platonic truth requires immediacy and absolutely no ambiguity. That is not possible within this medium.

However, there is an acceptable level of interpretation within language or any other communication medium. We acknowledge this in order to facilitate what communication we can and acknowledge the fact that it is an imperfect medium. The best of us can touch the surface a bit deeper than others, but that's about it. It's just not built for "absolute truths."

Let's say you and I come over the crest of a hill. Together, standing there, we see a beautiful vista unfold before us. The sun rises, wonderfully painted mountains are in the distance, fields fade away in the morning light, the ocean waves crash against the shore, an idyllic railroad snakes across the countryside and a classic steam locomotive explodes, it's vapors cooking the nearby stand of trees, the screams of the dying and mortally wounded people echo off the cliffs.. Truly a beautiful scene, right?

Now, where's the disconnect? Up to a certain point, our shared general experiences and heritage will allow for an acceptable level of communication. Even as just being normally functioning human beings, we can possibly agree on a few things of beauty within the scene. Yes, it's a beautiful scene, but only up to a point. As the interpretation of that beauty goes deeper, far past the limits of the medium in which we are expressing that beauty, our differences will become more pronounced. We can not share the same exact experience. The experience can not evoke the same exact reaction in both of us. Each of us will have slightly different experiences that are magnified the further removed from generalities we go. Within this context, it's just not possible to "share" absolute "Truths." We can have them, for ourselves, to a certain extent. But, I can not point to something and say with any validity that "This is an absolute Truth, true in all interpretations, regardless of the interpreter." It's just not possible. Truth requires some form of interpretation in order to be declared "Truth."

But, we can agree that, within the limits of shared understanding, something is "True Enough" to be declared true. Just not "Absolutely True"...

Note: Whether or not it's true to the Universe of possibilities isn't something that matters to us. We aren't privy to the full extent of that realm. We aren't capable of entering it. We're just accepting of the fact that we can skirt the borders effectively enough for our purposes.