True statements: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » True statements » True statements

True statements

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Last

True statements

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 04/15/09 - 08:31 PM:	#91
Am I the only one here that finds pragmatism to be more plausible? How can this be?
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 04/15/09 - 08:38 PM:	#92
Look people, think back onto the old days. Practically everyone who weren't super philosophical had this assumption of this static external world, much like Plato's idea of forms. However most people didn't think there were perfect forms, they just thought that there's an external world we're perceiving, and this world has a particular structure that is static and absolute. This is simply the most common sense based definition of truth is it not? This is what I thought when I was a little kid. Therefore the idea of truth most likely started based on the notion of this absolute external world, truth was thought to be that which matches the structure of this external world. However now days this notion is constantly being challenged, we're starting to find that our notions of what this external world is like is crumbling around us. This happens to such an extent that it's highly questionable whether there is an absolute external world out there at all. So is "what is the case" aka truth that which matches this external world's structure? Or does this whole thing require some close examination? Does the whole idea of truth require some re-evaluation? Of course we're NOT talking of simply human made facts, such as the capital of China is Beijing, that maybe truth, but that's not where the controversy is at. Edited by kkiiji on 04/15/09 - 08:47 PM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/15/09 - 08:58 PM:	#93
kkiiji wrote: This happens to such an extent that it's highly questionable whether there is an absolute external world out there at all. There's an external world, no question about it.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 04/15/09 - 09:20 PM:	#94
How are you so sure? What allowed you to reach such a conclusion? Even if there is an external world, could it be absolute? Or is the external world subjected to our subconscious interpretation to such a degree that any formulation of an objective external world is impossible? Step one: Does the objects in this external world have color? Wait, but color is supposed to be just different wavelengths of light reflecting off of objects interpreted by our biological mechanisms. Step two: Does the objects in this external world have an absolute position in time and space? Wait, time and space are both relative to the frame of reference of the observer. Step three: Does the objects in this external world have a precise deterministic structure that guides their course? Wait, it's not precise at all when we're down at the quantum level, in fact we can only deal with it through probability distributions. Is your absolute external world in question yet? Edited by kkiiji on 04/15/09 - 09:26 PM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/15/09 - 09:37 PM:	#95
kkiiji wrote: How are you so sure? What allowed you to reach such a conclusion? There's two ways we can manipulate our experiences, we can think or we can act. Experiences that I can manipulate with thoughts are internal, such as memories, ideas, etc. Experiences that I can only manipulate with actions are external. As to what these external things are made of, nothing is ruled out, we could be part of a simulation or part of a dream. However, I do know that even if I am made of dreams, I am not the dreamer. "As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me." -Bertrand Russell kkiiji wrote: Even if there is an external world, could it be absolute? Or is the external world subjected to our subconscious interpretation to such a degree that any formulation of an objective external world is impossible? I don't know what absolute means in this context. As far as I know, we all share the same reality. If one of us sees a horse and the other does not then one or both of us is mistaken. There's no possibility that I see a horse and you see an elephant, unless we just have different definitions of the words.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/15/09 - 09:45 PM:	#96
kkiiji wrote: Step one: Does the objects in this external world have color? Wait, but color is supposed to be just different wavelengths of light reflecting off of objects interpreted by our biological mechanisms. Objects don't have color. We interpret colors relatively. That's why things look the same color even when the light changes in the evening. That's why all those neat optical illusions work. kkiiji wrote: Step two: Does the objects in this external world have an absolute position in time and space? Wait, time and space are both relative to the frame of reference of the observer. Objects don't have absolute position and velocities. They have probability amplitudes. Those probabilities are very real and can even interfere with each other in some pretty cool interferometer experiments. kkiiji wrote: Step three: Does the objects in this external world have a precise deterministic structure that guides their course? Wait, it's not precise at all when we're down at the quantum level, in fact we can only deal with it through probability distributions. Objects don't have their behaviors controlled by forces or "laws of nature". The laws of nature are simply true descriptions of what happens. A true description of me performing an action does not force me to perform the action. It's simply a true description in light of the fact that I did perform said action. kkiiji wrote: Is your absolute external world in question yet? No but I still don't know what you mean by absolute in this context.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 04/15/09 - 09:56 PM:	#97
Absolute simply means objective, static and concrete in this context. I'm simply attempting to challenge the idea of this concrete external world that we can know for certain, in other words what is commonly known as truth. You seem to agree that this external world is "fuzzy" and not exactly concrete, that any conception of it is subject to personal interpretation that is essentially impossible to remove. Thus this common conception of truth as what matches the structure of the external world is seriously flawed. In summary, it is quite hard to draw the line between our subjective interpretation and this external world, in fact it appears impossible. Thus what we practically assume to be the external world is often heavily internal and subjective. Therefore, to separate the external world out and to assume that truth is what objectively matches this external world's structure is inherently flawed. Regarding the existence of the external world, I'd have to say that its existence is simply a rational and practical metaphysical assumption, nothing set in stone. We have various different types of phenomenal experiences, some of these experiences are so heavily reinforced and so structured that it's very practical to label them as the "external world" in contrast to the other experiences and come up with a theoretical model of this "external world" based on these reinforced experiences. Though one must recognize that this is theoretical metaphysics, not absolute truth. Though even if we look at subjective experiences, even those are subject to a lack of certainty. For example at this moment you could be thinking about 5 seconds ago when you snapped your fingers, so you could believe that it is a true statement that "5 seconds ago I experienced willing my fingers to snap and perceiving the action" or some such subjective phenomenal statement. However, can we be certain of past phenomenal experiences? Are our memories 100% trustworthy? Anything phenomenal experiences that does not take place in the present is subject to doubt(rational not emotional) due the fallibility of our memories. Thus the only TRUE statement is that "at this moment I am recalling memories of the phenomenal experience of snapping my fingers in the past." This is because the structure of this present phenomenal world is the very building blocks of being, thus it must necessarily be "the case". I think someone already mentioned this in the previous posts, I guess I'm just fueling the forest fire? Edited by kkiiji on 04/15/09 - 10:18 PM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/15/09 - 10:14 PM:	#98
kkiiji wrote: You seem to agree that this external world is "fuzzy" and not exactly concrete, that any conception of it is subject to personal interpretation that is essentially impossible to remove. Thus this common conception of truth as what matches the structure of the external world is seriously flawed. I don't see how. If it's a fact that particles don't have a definite position and velocity then the proposition "particles don't have a definite position and velocity" is true because it corresponds to that fact. kkiiji wrote: In summary, it is quite hard to draw the line between our subjective interpretation and this external world, in fact it appears impossible. Thus what we practically assume to be the external world is often heavily internal and subjective. Therefore, to separate the external world out and to assume that truth is what objectively matches this external world's structure is inherently flawed. No one has claimed that we can isolate observation from theory. All observations are theory-laden. We cannot hope to "carve nature at the joints". There's no such thing as a philosophy-free science. This is standard curriculum in any philosophy of science class. This does not do any damage to my world view since I've long accepted these facts.

kkiiji
Aubrey de Grey: a vampire

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Sep 30, 2007
Location: San Diego, California

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 1526

Posted 04/15/09 - 10:24 PM:	#99
J. Random Hacker wrote: I don't see how. If it's a fact that particles don't have a definite position and velocity then the proposition "particles don't have a definite position and velocity" is true because it corresponds to that fact. No one has claimed that we can isolate observation from theory. All observations are theory-laden. We cannot hope to "carve nature at the joints". There's no such thing as a philosophy-free science. This is standard curriculum in any philosophy of science class. This does not do any damage to my world view since I've long accepted these facts. Then how could you know any truths that match the external world? Aren't they all based on practical theoretical models then? Does that not mean that the whole conception of the external world is a theoretical model, thus not concrete truth? You say that Heisenberg's principle of quantum uncertainty is true because it corresponds to the facts as if it matches the external world, but you've agreed that in reality it's all just theoretical models that we can practically work with. So what does it mean for it to correspond with the facts? Perhaps the fact is WE are incapable of observing their position and momentum at the same time, but that is a highly subjective statement regarding our phenomenal experiences, it does not follow that in the "external world" particles do not have momentum and position at the same time. Main question: Does this not make pragmatism the most plausible theory of truth?(To me pragmatism practically includes coherence theory within its practical bounds.) Edited by kkiiji on 04/15/09 - 10:33 PM
Heard joke once: Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says "Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up." Man bursts into tears. Says "But Doctor... I am Pagliacci." Good joke, everybody laugh. Roll on snare drum... Curtains.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/15/09 - 10:39 PM:	#100
kkiiji wrote: Then how could you know any truths that match the external world? Aren't they all based on practical theoretical models then? Does that not mean that the whole conception of the external world is a theoretical model, thus not concrete truth? Yes, we all have a theoretical model of the world that's necessarily incomplete and inaccurate. To the extent that our theoretical models correspond with the actual state of the world, they are true, to the extent they do not, they are false. kkiiji wrote: You say that Heisenberg's principle of quantum uncertainty is true because it corresponds to the facts as if it matches the external world, but you've agreed that in reality it's all just theoretical models that we can practically work with. So what does it mean for it to correspond with the facts? This is where the "Problem of Induction" comes into play. Induction is actually based on a logical fallacy called "affirming the consequent" and for that reason induction does not and cannot ever prove something is true. This is a problem for us, however, not correspondence. kkiiji wrote: Perhaps the fact is WE are incapable of observing their position and momentum at the same time, but that is a highly subjective statement regarding our phenomenal experiences. Any indeterministic system can be described deterministically. There can never be a complete refutation of determinism. Our knowledge about the universe is fallible. This still does not pose any problems for correspondence.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Last

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.