Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth » Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Debate 3 Discussion: Whether there exists absolute truth

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3327

Posted 07/22/04 - 03:18 PM:	#101
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Do you wish to clarify, or muddy the issue? Do you wish to determin the validity of the statement, or to 'win the arguement'? If it's just to win the arguement, then you need not reply. I have tried to clarify, you seem to be making no effort to understand. And I don't know which statement you're referring to.
_____________________ "The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7803

Posted 07/22/04 - 04:17 PM:	#102
AKG wrote: We accept that we perceive gravity. Now, either we have a perception of gravity for a reason, or we have it for no reason. If we have this perception for no reason, the perception is not contingent on the mind, that is, it is independent on the mind, do we agree? If we have the perception for a reason, then why aren't we aware of the reason? If the mind generates the perception of gravity, and the perception of gravity occurs for a reason, then the mind generates the perception of gravity for a reason. Now what sense is there in saying that the mind generates the perception of gravity for a reason but the mind is not conscious of this reason? Even if you want to argue this, you would then have to submit that there is one aspect of the mind generating perceptions which does so independently of the aspect of the mind that perceives, otherwise the second aspect of the mind would be aware of that reason. If I stipulate that we percieve gravity, and I stipulate that the mind that we are refering to is the one involved with perception, and I stipulate that we don't intentionally create perceptions. Then is your arguement is that they: 1) are independant of the mind. or (in a non-exlusionary way) 2) generated by the mind. and that if 2 is true then according to what i have stipulated, 1 is true. Is that anywhere near what you are saying?
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3327

Posted 07/24/04 - 08:22 AM:	#103
Is that anywhere near what you are saying? It's close, but it's clearest if you go with exactly what I said, I don't think what I've said is so unclear that it needs constant rewording. The mind perceives gravity, so there is a perception of gravity for the mind to deal with. Now, either there is this perception of gravity for a reason, or for no reason. Please tell me if you can agree with that. Now, if the perception occurs for no reason, then the nature of the perception is not decided by the mind. And perhaps the nature of all perception (or much of it) is not decided by the mind, and now the world of perception is a largely independent entity from the mind, and this world of perception has some spontaneous origin. At very least, given this situation, you would have to agree that an event occurs without the mind causing it or giving it any impetus, that event being the reasonless existence of the perception of gravity. Now, if the perception occurs for a reason, it is certainly true that we are not aware of that reason. You are not aware as to why your mind has chosen to make you perceive gravity. Now, it may not be the mind generating these perceptions, it may be the Matrix, or some "physical reality," etc, but whatever it is, whatever is giving reason for these perceptions to exist, you are not consciously aware of the reason. There is some entity that is for some reason creating perceptions, and this is obviously not your consciousness, otherwise you'd be conscious of the reasons, which you're not. Whether you want to call this entity another part of the mind, or physical reality, or suggest that it's the matrix which exists in a physical reality, etc, it's something independent of consciousness which is responsible for the reasons of why you perceive as you do. This entity generates perceptions and does so independtly of your consciousness, so it shows again that there is something independent of the mind/consciousness, and so we can have truths independent as well. I think that last bit got a little redundant. Anyways, what you said was close to what I'm saying, but the difference is this: If you stipulate that you are not aware of any reason for your perceptions being as they are (and all that other stuff before -- so it's not a dilemma by any means), then my argument is that: 1) They occur for no reason, and thus their nature, their essence which defines there existence, is independent of the mind (and thus we may have a whole world of perception being an independent entity from the mind, with spontaneous origin). 2) They occur for a reason, but since that reason is unknown to you, some independent entity is providing reason and thus creating these perceptions, again implying something with a nature independent of the conscious, perceiving mind (and then we have at least some entity independent which creates perception, as well as perception itself, which may also be considered an independent entity of the mind). And note that I create these two options by the law of excluded middle, and as I've said, after those stipulations, if you can't accept this situation then I don't see any debate being meaningful, in fact I don't see anything being meaningful. Now, to be honest, I don't know if I've said anything new in the past few posts. I continually repeat myself, so it seems although you ask for clarification, it's doing no good. There is no sense in trying to categorize or reword my posts, just try to understand my argument, go sentence by sentence and find what you feel is the wrong implication/premise. I don't see much purpose in continually re-clarifying my posts, I don't see how it could possibly make for a good debate. So, either you get it and can pick out where I go wrong, or you don't get it, and may as well write this one off and assume I was just unclear.
_____________________ "The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7803

Posted 07/24/04 - 04:00 PM:	#104
AKG wrote: If you stipulate that you are not aware of any reason for your perceptions being as they are (and all that other stuff before -- so it's not a dilemma by any means), then my argument is that: 1) They occur for no reason, and thus their nature, their essence which defines there existence, is independent of the mind (and thus we may have a whole world of perception being an independent entity from the mind, with spontaneous origin). 2) They occur for a reason, but since that reason is unknown to you, some independent entity is providing reason and thus creating these perceptions, again implying something with a nature independent of the conscious, perceiving mind (and then we have at least some entity independent which creates perception, as well as perception itself, which may also be considered an independent entity of the mind). And note that I create these two options by the law of excluded middle, and as I've said, after those stipulations, if you can't accept this situation then I don't see any debate being meaningful, in fact I don't see anything being meaningful. Thank you, I beleive that is clear. I would prepose that their is in fact a third option that I don't think we've explored. That the perception is the mind, and any other conciousness, rather than sitting apart from the mind, is a by-product of it. If I am not mistaken, this could allow for a world of perception that could be both spontaneous, and not seperate from that mind, as it is the mind. Now, to be honest, I don't know if I've said anything new in the past few posts. I continually repeat myself, so it seems although you ask for clarification, it's doing no good. There is no sense in trying to categorize or reword my posts, just try to understand my argument, go sentence by sentence and find what you feel is the wrong implication/premise. I don't see much purpose in continually re-clarifying my posts, I don't see how it could possibly make for a good debate. So, either you get it and can pick out where I go wrong, or you don't get it, and may as well write this one off and assume I was just unclear. I choose to ask for clarity rather than say things like: That doesn't make sense. Huh? What does this mean? Did you ignore what I said? If there is not clarity, why should we jump to fault. When you say that I should "just try to understand my arguement", you imply that I haven't. I have asked if you were trying to clarify or muddy, and have taken you at your word that you are trying to clarify. Please extend me the same courtesy when I tell you that I am trying to understand your arguement. How could I refute it (which is my attempt) if I didn't understand it? I see no reason why the statement "you arguement in not understandable to me" is negative or controversial.
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3327

Posted 07/24/04 - 06:54 PM:	#105
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Thank you, I beleive that is clear. I would prepose that their is in fact a third option that I don't think we've explored. That the perception is the mind, and any other conciousness, rather than sitting apart from the mind, is a by-product of it. If I am not mistaken, this could allow for a world of perception that could be both spontaneous, and not seperate from that mind, as it is the mind. I see this as a rather strange redefinition. Perhaps we can settle, for now, that given my definition that my argument holds? Also, as I suggested, that it may simply be that we like to define things in different ways, and that seems to be the case, as you are defining the mind as perception. I'd like you to elaborate on this definition, show it's practicality, how it fares better than other definitions, and perhaps some examples. For example, that tree outside is not thinking, "Boy, I'm hungry." It is not perceiving that tree over there either (that tree being itself). I find this definition almost like saying that the farmer doesn't harvest the grain, the farmer is the grain. However, I'll give you a chance to clarify. Standard definitions give the mind as that entity which deals with and interprets perceptions, not something which is perception, so I think you may want to take into account that, for one, I think those who are new to English would be rather confused by your words, if not those who are proficient at the language as well.
_____________________ "The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7803

Posted 07/25/04 - 12:09 AM:	#106
AKG wrote: I see this as a rather strange redefinition. Perhaps we can settle, for now, that given my definition that my argument holds? Also, as I suggested, that it may simply be that we like to define things in different ways, and that seems to be the case, as you are defining the mind as perception. I'd like you to elaborate on this definition, show it's practicality, how it fares better than other definitions, and perhaps some examples. For example, that tree outside is not thinking, "Boy, I'm hungry." It is not perceiving that tree over there either (that tree being itself). I find this definition almost like saying that the farmer doesn't harvest the grain, the farmer is the grain. However, I'll give you a chance to clarify. Standard definitions give the mind as that entity which deals with and interprets perceptions, not something which is perception, so I think you may want to take into account that, for one, I think those who are new to English would be rather confused by your words, if not those who are proficient at the language as well. I would agree that it is a difficult way to think about things. In questions like this (especially when your position is couner-intuitive) I believe that it is necessary to allow for creative solutions. I will explain, and if we can agree that this is a possible option, then it is a necessary possiblity that truth does not live outside the mind. Let's say that spontaniously I/Perception began (not exactly the right word, as time is also a by-product). I/Perception is apples, trees, hollywood movies, and anything we know perceptually. I/Perception organizes and creates time, concept of independant reality, three dimensions, sense of self(ego), and any number of other things we take for granted as being 'real'. Now is this a better solution than the mind-independent reality? Not necessarily. But it does present another alternative into the metaphysical mix, where we haven't the luxury of actual evidence. If this could possibly be, then the possibility of a mind-independent reality is called into question. without a mind-independant reality, the question of objective truth is equally suspect. I will remind you that my position is not "there is no such thing as absolute truth". My position is the negative to "there exists absolute truth". I can negate it equally well saying "the statement 'there exists absolute truth' is unsound". The latter is my position.
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3327

Posted 07/25/04 - 03:56 PM:	#107
Reformed Nihilist wrote: I would agree that it is a difficult way to think about things. In questions like this (especially when your position is couner-intuitive) I believe that it is necessary to allow for creative solutions. I will explain, and if we can agree that this is a possible option, then it is a necessary possiblity that truth does not live outside the mind. Let's say that spontaniously I/Perception began (not exactly the right word, as time is also a by-product). I/Perception is apples, trees, hollywood movies, and anything we know perceptually. I/Perception organizes and creates time, concept of independant reality, three dimensions, sense of self(ego), and any number of other things we take for granted as being 'real'. Now is this a better solution than the mind-independent reality? Not necessarily. But it does present another alternative into the metaphysical mix, where we haven't the luxury of actual evidence. If this could possibly be, then the possibility of a mind-independent reality is called into question. without a mind-independant reality, the question of objective truth is equally suspect. I will remind you that my position is not "there is no such thing as absolute truth". My position is the negative to "there exists absolute truth". I can negate it equally well saying "the statement 'there exists absolute truth' is unsound". The latter is my position. The self, that combination of mind, ego, body, etc, that has that sense of self, is a consciousness independent of the perceptual world. Although they may both have the same origins, they behave independently. The mind and the world of perception would be like twins by your model. I think that whether there is an absolute truth is simple. I exist. I think, I doubt, I perceive, etc. What is the nature and origin of I, of perception, etc? That's a different question. Is perception independent of the perceiver? Well it certainly behaves independently, whether it has the same origins is irrelevant. Furthermore, if the I/perception came to be spontaneously, what's to stop us from defining the world of I/perception as reality, and defining truths of this world as absolute truths?
_____________________ "The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7803

Posted 07/26/04 - 08:20 AM:	#108
AKG wrote: The self, that combination of mind, ego, body, etc, that has that sense of self, is a consciousness independent of the perceptual world. Although they may both have the same origins, they behave independently. The mind and the world of perception would be like twins by your model. I think that whether there is an absolute truth is simple. I exist. I think, I doubt, I perceive, etc. What is the nature and origin of I, of perception, etc? That's a different question. Is perception independent of the perceiver? Well it certainly behaves independently, whether it has the same origins is irrelevant. Inreresting and legitamate thoughts, but not, I believe a refutation. If you wish me to comment on any of the specifics in the above, I would be glad to; but please read what follows first. Furthermore, if the I/perception came to be spontaneously, what's to stop us from defining the world of I/perception as reality, and defining truths of this world as absolute truths? Nothing but redundancy. If being relative to the mind is not enough to fufill 'relativity' the I would assert that the definition you use for truth would be "the way things are, in spite of any apparent relationships". That was why I was talking about circular logic earlier on. The world funcions in relatives, and absolute concepts are like infinity; great on paper and usefull to muse about, but having no directly attributal effect (achillies and the tortoise). It seems to be under any definition of truth that used aboslute as more than a abstract concept, that there could be no relative truth. It's like talking about the edge of the universe, we intuit that all things have bounds, but we also intuit that there must be a 'next point'. We have a dilemma. So we create an answer and call it infinity, the 'absolute' number (as it encompasses everything, and has no relationship to any other number). Forgive me if my descriptions highlight a minimal aquaintence with mathematics, but I believe that my point about absolutes still stands.
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3327

Posted 07/26/04 - 08:32 AM:	#109
Reformed Nihilist wrote: Inreresting and legitamate thoughts, but not, I believe a refutation. If you wish me to comment on any of the specifics in the above, I would be glad to; but please read what follows first. I think you should comment on "I exist" as an absolute truth. Saying "I exist" is true only relative to me doesn't make sense. For a truth to be relative to some thing, that thing has to exist "absolutely". Nothing but redundancy. If being relative to the mind is not enough to fufill 'relativity' the I would assert that the definition you use for truth would be "the way things are, in spite of any apparent relationships". As I've said before, "relative truth" and "absolute truth" are pretty useless concepts. If something is relatively true to me, then isn't it absolutely true that it is relatively true to me? Or is it relatively true to me relative to something else? You'll run into serious problems if you go with that. Anyways, my point was, sort of, that if nothing but the I/perception existed, then wouldn't that be absolute reality itself? Subjective experience would be objective experience, because there would be nothing more than the mind and what it perceives. As for the rest of the stuff on infinity, I don't find it relevant.
_____________________ "The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Reformed Nihilist
Oblong

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 15, 2004
Location: The mighty fortress of the north
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 7803

Posted 07/26/04 - 08:47 AM:	#110
I think that this is where we diverge fundamentally. If the concepts of 'relative truth' and 'absolute truth' are useless, then we can proceed no further usefully. I thank you for taking the time to consider my position, and hope this exersize has be valuable to you. I know it has been to me.
_____________________ Vivian Jaffe: Have you ever transcended space and time? Albert Markovski: Yes... No... Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about. I Heart Huckabees (2004)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.