Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Truth and Knowledge
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SelfSim" data-source="post: 74729022" data-attributes="member: 354922"><p>What is<em> 'obvious',</em> is that such a mental patient has altered what they mean by reality if they argue <em>'something is not itself'</em>!</p><p></p><p>Completely ignoring the observation that their mind is at play in doing that, demonstrates the fault that is unique to the thinking which produces <em>'whatever is, is'</em>! The observational fact is that different people think in different ways, and we have hard work to do in order to decide what counts as 'true', or <em>'what is'</em> .. and <em>"what isn't"</em>. None of those are just 'givens’. Its up to us to decide.</p><p></p><p>In fact the unevidenced assertion of <em>'whatever is, is',</em> completely erases that observation by attempting to replace it with unobservable, untestable circular reasoning - a truism.</p><p>Really? How exactly that does that come about when a circular reference of: <em>'Whatever is, is'</em> becomes the basis of this supposed distinction? The same word in the phrase, <em>'is'</em>, is used for making its own claim, for goodness sake! Word salad is what it is .. completely useless for making progress on distinguishing reality .. (Note: which doesn't necessarily rule out its usefulness in detecting contradictions).</p><p>Yet that particular one, completely erases what it took to make its claim .. (ie: a thinking mind).</p><p>I am talking about all human minds.</p><p>What do you mean by <em>'the law of identity is working'</em>? Working for what? Where do you say this supposed 'law' came from? Maybe it was (sort of) discovered floating around in space perhaps, (like say, an asteroid does), and then imposed itself upon humans, who then just sort rolled over and decided to willingly 'obey' it(?)</p><p>Ok.. let’s consider an example of how 'truth' evolves: Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system was tested by a millennium of cultures who used it, and it was found to be satisfactory, so those minds regarded the model as "true." This is a matter of historical fact. But the only mistake there was when those minds <em>also</em> regarded it as a <em>mind independent </em>truth, rather than recognizing it for what it was: a decision to regard something that fitted its purpose of being <em>provisionally and contextually 'true'</em>.</p><p></p><p>As usual, the problem only appears when one makes metaphysical assumptions about the meaning of "truth", assumptions that no scientific thinker ever needs.</p><p></p><p>My point here is demonstrating that 'truth' is assignable within a stated context .. and not something set in concrete (or suitable for regarding as a basis for some kind of absolute 'law', or principle, which must be obeyed when thinking).</p><p>.. as I have already concurred ..</p><p></p><p>Logic on its own, never does anything but find the tautological equivalences of its predicates and postulates. Science however, isn't like that at all.</p><p> The latter of which is objectively testable by many means .. and it wouldn't be considered as objective truth (provisionally and contextually) until the results were also verified by independent means - something logic doesn't require in order to track its equivalences.</p><p>Truth is not some absolute .. its up to us to decide what it means by following at least two dissimilar known processes (logic or science).</p><p>Ok .. agreed. Science however deals in objective reality .. and this is a science forum .. not a philosophy forum.</p><p></p><p>Logic is purely symbolic, and its truths are purely structural, but we aspire to something more .. we aspire to understanding some kind of <em>meaning.</em> This aspiration comes with a price, and Einstein hit that nail on the head:</p><p><em>- 'As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality'.</em> </p><p>(.. so much for regarding scientific statements as logical truisms or falsehoods!) Logic is just our tool for making sense, and reality is the sense we make. What it is making sense of, is just more sense. We struggle so hard to understand why the universe makes sense, but when we realize that what we mean by 'the universe', is just the sense we make, the whole question goes away. Ironically, it is more when the universe does <em>not </em>make sense that we are forced to confront the gaps in our understanding, and that's when we conjure absolutes like mind independent beliefs to plug those gaps .. in classic <em>'god of the gaps'</em> tradition.</p><p></p><p>We could instead just realize that we never completely understand the meanings of our own words, our statements carry an illusion of preciseness, echoing the false precision of some absolute mind independent reality notion. After all, what could possibly be more precise than <em>'the one true way'</em> that the universe actually is, amid the infinity of possible alternatives? That's some kind of record for untestable precision .. but science is about testable imprecision.</p><p>Not useful in distinguishing objective reality/existence (ie: <em>'what is'</em>) by way of making meaningless self references which conceal the role <u>we</u> play in deciding what is real, or what isn't .. and what is true, and what isn't.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SelfSim, post: 74729022, member: 354922"] What is[I] 'obvious',[/I] is that such a mental patient has altered what they mean by reality if they argue [I]'something is not itself'[/I]! Completely ignoring the observation that their mind is at play in doing that, demonstrates the fault that is unique to the thinking which produces [I]'whatever is, is'[/I]! The observational fact is that different people think in different ways, and we have hard work to do in order to decide what counts as 'true', or [I]'what is'[/I] .. and [I]"what isn't"[/I]. None of those are just 'givens’. Its up to us to decide. In fact the unevidenced assertion of [I]'whatever is, is',[/I] completely erases that observation by attempting to replace it with unobservable, untestable circular reasoning - a truism. Really? How exactly that does that come about when a circular reference of: [I]'Whatever is, is'[/I] becomes the basis of this supposed distinction? The same word in the phrase, [I]'is'[/I], is used for making its own claim, for goodness sake! Word salad is what it is .. completely useless for making progress on distinguishing reality .. (Note: which doesn't necessarily rule out its usefulness in detecting contradictions). Yet that particular one, completely erases what it took to make its claim .. (ie: a thinking mind). I am talking about all human minds. What do you mean by [I]'the law of identity is working'[/I]? Working for what? Where do you say this supposed 'law' came from? Maybe it was (sort of) discovered floating around in space perhaps, (like say, an asteroid does), and then imposed itself upon humans, who then just sort rolled over and decided to willingly 'obey' it(?) Ok.. let’s consider an example of how 'truth' evolves: Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system was tested by a millennium of cultures who used it, and it was found to be satisfactory, so those minds regarded the model as "true." This is a matter of historical fact. But the only mistake there was when those minds [I]also[/I] regarded it as a [I]mind independent [/I]truth, rather than recognizing it for what it was: a decision to regard something that fitted its purpose of being [I]provisionally and contextually 'true'[/I]. As usual, the problem only appears when one makes metaphysical assumptions about the meaning of "truth", assumptions that no scientific thinker ever needs. My point here is demonstrating that 'truth' is assignable within a stated context .. and not something set in concrete (or suitable for regarding as a basis for some kind of absolute 'law', or principle, which must be obeyed when thinking). .. as I have already concurred .. Logic on its own, never does anything but find the tautological equivalences of its predicates and postulates. Science however, isn't like that at all. The latter of which is objectively testable by many means .. and it wouldn't be considered as objective truth (provisionally and contextually) until the results were also verified by independent means - something logic doesn't require in order to track its equivalences. Truth is not some absolute .. its up to us to decide what it means by following at least two dissimilar known processes (logic or science). Ok .. agreed. Science however deals in objective reality .. and this is a science forum .. not a philosophy forum. Logic is purely symbolic, and its truths are purely structural, but we aspire to something more .. we aspire to understanding some kind of [I]meaning.[/I] This aspiration comes with a price, and Einstein hit that nail on the head: [I]- 'As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality'.[/I] (.. so much for regarding scientific statements as logical truisms or falsehoods!) Logic is just our tool for making sense, and reality is the sense we make. What it is making sense of, is just more sense. We struggle so hard to understand why the universe makes sense, but when we realize that what we mean by 'the universe', is just the sense we make, the whole question goes away. Ironically, it is more when the universe does [I]not [/I]make sense that we are forced to confront the gaps in our understanding, and that's when we conjure absolutes like mind independent beliefs to plug those gaps .. in classic [I]'god of the gaps'[/I] tradition. We could instead just realize that we never completely understand the meanings of our own words, our statements carry an illusion of preciseness, echoing the false precision of some absolute mind independent reality notion. After all, what could possibly be more precise than [I]'the one true way'[/I] that the universe actually is, amid the infinity of possible alternatives? That's some kind of record for untestable precision .. but science is about testable imprecision. Not useful in distinguishing objective reality/existence (ie: [I]'what is'[/I]) by way of making meaningless self references which conceal the role [U]we[/U] play in deciding what is real, or what isn't .. and what is true, and what isn't. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Truth and Knowledge
Top
Bottom