Hey guys, just working on a paper for my philosophy class, all about what "truth" really is; it's quite interesting to think about. I'm working that angle that truth is our mind's connection to the external world - not saying that the internal and external are separate - just like the corpus callosum connects our right and left hemispheres. Truth is a way for us to make sense of the world, unfortunately we are not born with a knowledge of truth; so we must use our intellects to get as close as we can to it. However, like an asymptote, we can never quite get there.

What are your options and/or thought?

Nothing is true...Everything is permissible...

(difficult to implement)

My opinion is that truth is inseparable from fact, which arises from observation and measurement and has nothing to do with belief or opinion.

It is true that at this moment I weigh a certain amount, no matter what my opinion or belief about this, i cannot achieve a different result by stepping on the scale with a different opinion.

A measurement is true, an opinion is not.
That which cannot be objectively determined, quantified and qualified cannot be regarded as in the domain of truth.

A consistent reality exists, otherwise the subjectivity of observation would be self subject and there would be no consistency to measurements. The very fact that perception is subjective then evidences that objective reality and truth exist. If perception determined truth then an opinion could change how much something weighs, or how long an object is. Thus the concept that perception is determinate of truth is untenable, for no matter your perception you cannot alter that which is consistently objective.

Discard the notion that we cannot know truth because we must observe the objective via subjective perception, it is worthless, but you may have to regurgitate it from time to time in a paper or on a test. It is were a meaningful notion then you could never know how much you weigh when you read a scale...

One must take great care not to fall into logic patterns when researching this subject or one will make the classic mistake of thinking that logic is determinate and representative of objective reality when it is an artifice, a symbolic method and nothing more than this.

Be also cautious of the philosophy of science wherein truth becomes an abstract concept subject to falsification. It is reasonable to a degree, wherein what is regarded as true can be considered to be no longer true if it is falsified. However it becomes unreasonable when taken to the extreme and impractical.

Truth is largely outside of the domain of philosophy, which deals in abstractions and logic. A philosopher can argue anything all day long, but cannot change reality with their opinion anymore than thinking you can fly makes it so. Be careful of Philosophy fundamentalists, they are fanatics like any other religious fanatics and equally capable of wasting your time and misleading the gullible and weak minded.

My thoughts at least.

I was offered a scholarship in philosophy and I flatly refused.

I consider philosophy a pseudo-intellectual pursuit, that is my opinion, and likely why I got an A in every philosophy class I ever took.

An asymptote is one way of approaching something, the other is to go past it and then oscillate back and forth. I think that truth is completely subjective, and is a notion conjured up by conscious beings for the sake of practicality, because we wouldn't get anything done if we didn't presume certain things to be "true".

I disagree that we are not born knowing truths. There are plenty of "truths" that are written in our genes, such as how to walk on two legs, "death is bad", and many others that affect our interpretation of the world and thus how we interact with it.

We are not born knowing how to walk on two legs, not like a spider is born knowing how to spin a web, we have to learn it.

"Death is bad" seems like an axiomatic opinion to me.
I can't view an opinion as true, personally.

I can view a street address as true... it isn't very subjective at all.

If we believe something to be true, that does not make it truth, that makes it a belief, an opinion, an axiom. If something is truth our belief about it is irrelevant. A street address is true, if you believe it or don't believe it, it is still there and your belief in it changes nothing at all. This is the nature of truth. An axiom might be regarded as true, like "death is bad" but it is not truth, it depends rather entirely upon belief in it and if you don't agree with it then it isn't true for you, in this case true is a very poor word and truth is even worse.

Real truth, things that are true, are objective.
Everything else is belief or opinion, calling an opinion truth seems inherently problematic to me.

But it is subjective whether a determination/quantification/qualification is objective or not. And what if we would not currently have a method to measure weight? Surely we would still have a weight. We would not be able to measure it, but it would still be in the domain of truth. This obviously applies to many things currently unknown to us, instead of weight.



I'd like to explore this concept of weighting (or anything similar) a bit more. We cannot determine the weight of only one thing. A kilogram is actually this (International prototype kilogram). The only way we can determine properties such as weight is by comparing things. When we say something weights 2 kg, what this actually means is if we place the object on a scale, and put twice the IPK on the other side of the scale, there will be a balance. There is no inherent numeric amount of weight to an object! It depends on what reference system we use, most commonly the IPK to which we assign the number "1".

So, while we may receive consistent numeric results if we all compare with the same reference system, this does not make weight an objective matter. A weightlifter will laugh at a weight of 80 kg and lift it easily, but many of us will have a lot of trouble.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that all weight is doubled. It does not matter how this is accomplished, just imagine everything suddenly is twice as heavy. We will still receive the same numbers because the relationship of any object to the IPK has not changed, as objects are now twice their previous weight, and the IPK is now twice it's previous weight as well. But everything will feel much heavier to us, and the proportions will completely change as well (items previously heavy will increase much more in heaviness than items previously light).

This example shows how we can have a situation in which we produce the same numbers from calculations/comparisons, but where the weight is not the same. In my opinion this is proof of the illusory character of numbers, and their supposed objectivity (so they are not objective). This includes the supposed objectivity of all other kinds of measurements, because all these measurements rely on the same method of picking a reference point and comparing to it, making all measurements non-objective.

The point is not the determination of weight according to comparisons, the point is that no matter what your belief and opinion do not change the reality of weights. The truth of comparative measurements is non-axiomatic.

If you cannot measure a weight, then the value has no objectivity and it is a metaphysical concept.

Numbers are only objective in context and are subjective artifices unto themselves.

If measurements were non-objective then the subjective aspect would undermine their utility and weights would be of Zero use, in our case measurements used for DMT extractions and doses would then be arbitrary and would not matter.

This is why i consider the subjective arguments to be ridiculous and pseudo-intellectual, because when it comes down to it; opinions and beliefs do not change the results of measurement regardless of the comparative basis.

Truth is subjective. Just like everything in this world. The world is made of mind.

Truth is infinitely true and infinitely false, depending on which way you are looking.

Hope you get a good grade on the paper!

I Philo

AlbertKLloyd i disagree with you on almost every point!

You seem to be arguing against the idea that altering belief states (alone) changes states of affairs .. i don't think anyone is saying that .. subjective means mind-dependent, subjects know and act, objective means mind-independent, objects are known and acted on, and carry on their business regardless of whether we're here to see them .. you seem to be hating on philosophy for it's lack of concordance with a positivist conception of truth. Philosophy is a privileged space for thinking about this as it's not confined by a particular image of what it is to Think. As an aside for empirical studies demonstrating the significance of mental states in producing material change, one of the more interesting i'd recommend is http://noosphere.princeton.edu/



^ this is like saying 'the truth of deductively true statements is non-empirical' - it's entailed by the definition of empirical observation .. it's like saying a square has four sides ..




.. if you can't measure that something then there is no value. if you think this is the case then i'm sorry to say but you misunderstand metaphysics.


So only measurable things are amenable to the registers of true and false? There's no relation of truth to love, freedom, to justice ?

If truth is subjective, then why does insanity exist wherein people believe things that are demonstrably false? Despite their perception of something being subjective, their perceptions do not alter the nature of reality.

Example: why do people who believe they can fly, who try to do so from great heights, fall to their deaths?
It is true they cannot fly, this is objective, hence they die.
No amount of philosophizing facilitates flight or changes this reality.

It cannot be subjective can it?
Because if it were, if Mind determined physical reality, then they would fly.

That they feel it is true, that they perceive it to be true, in their minds, that they can fly does not make it true. The perception of truth does not alter or change that which is true.

Is there any evidence that truth is subjective?
It seems like an opinion that cannot be supported by any test, measurement or observation.

I want to fly, taking off from the ground of course.
If truth is subjective, then if I believe I can... I can?
Really?

That is an oxymoron to me. a paradox.
Deduction yields plausibility, terms of probability, but not truth.



Your opinion, no worries. I disagree.

There is an invisible being that walks behind you all day long, it is orange with green spots, it has never been seen, does not interact with anyone and cannot ever be perceived, what is the value of a statement to that effect or a belief, even if it were actually true? Such claims are worthless to me.



Yes, that is it exactly.

Those are all subjective concepts that are faith based.

Can you quantify justice?
Freedom?
Love?

They have nothing to do with truth, only belief.

As is truth.

I once moderated a discussion between a group of physicists (quantum mostly) and a group of philosophers that was about this subject/topic. That was fun!!! The title was "truth and objectivity"

I won't bore you with the details. Basically the Quantum physics guys said truth is objective and subjective truth is irrelevant and meaningless. I agree.

Then you ^ Sir are a positivist and a bean-counter, and i therefore will not engage you further

As your opinion then that is subjective and therefor not true, just a belief.

My own ontology is quite divergent from that associated with positivism.
That is however another topic.

I was only addressing truth and objectivity and subjectivity, not the concept of knowledge itself. You might note that I did state (the belief) that perception was itself subjective, but that truth is itself objective, that right there separates me from the positivists.

I don't count beans, I eat them.

Actually we are... http://en.wikipedia.org/...alking.2Fstepping_reflex


Axioms ARE presumed truths:
Axiom - "an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth" (Merriam-Webster).

If we believe something to be true, that does not make it truth, that makes it a belief, an opinion, an axiom. All truths that you (AKL) would consider objective are built upon faith-based beliefs, such as the belief that your perceptions reflect objective reality in the first place, and the belief that deductive and inductive logic lead to truth. Everything that you consider "objective truth" is based on these axioms/beliefs. There is no way of getting around the fact that no mind, by definition, has ever experienced objective reality.

EDIT: All alleged truths are rooted in subjective experience, even those expressed in the above post, and even this the one expressed in this sentence.

I am aware of the stepping reflex, but that is not necessarily being born knowing how to walk (I have children, I delivered/caught most of them myself and had to check this reflex) rather it is just a reflex. You appear to believe that a reflex is a form of knowledge, but this is not my belief. There are other reflexes too, but I do not consider them knowledge either.




I believe that truth is inseparable from fact and that axioms are non-factual. This is my position.



ROFLMAO!

You say that it is a fact that no mind experiences objective reality, but if this is at all factual, or consistent, then there is an objective truth to it that is clearly mind independant... Then how can you state this is fact? It is a self contradiction!

if it was a subjective truth that the mind experiences subjective reality then it would not be a fact or even consistent

the only tenable conclusion is that the mind subjectively perceives objective reality

if the truths I consider objective, or rather if objective truth were faith based, then it would be mind dependent and thus if I did not have faith it it, it would no longer be true...

Like I wrote however regarding being able to fly, this type of notion crashes to the ground in terms of practice.

As I wrote above but will restate: that perception is subjective does not mean that which is perceived is subjective, rather the subjective nature of perception is evidence that what is perceived is objective.

My factual claims, like all factual claims, represent subjective facts, i.e. statements that I believe to be true based only on perceptual evidence, the reliability of which can only be verified circularly (with other perceptual evidence).


That is just the only conclusion that you consider tenable. If you can only imagine one possible reality, then that could also mean that you're not very imaginative.

True.
I have no imagination whatsoever.


But that doesn't mean I only imagine one possible reality.

I get it. If i have four apples, and I give you one apple, I would say that I have three apples left, but you would say that I lack imagination because I am only considering one outcome of that tenable. But lets say that I imagined I had less and more apples... buyt then I made the mistake of counting them...

Perhaps being overly imaginative when it comes to reality imposes limits in terms of function and ability?

Like if you try to fly by jumping off a tall building, the imaginative person goes splat!
The one lacking imagination doesn't jump.

I have no problem not jumping.
You can do as you will.

It seems it all comes down to empirical data vs perception. But the reason I say truth is like an asymptote is because at the present date there is absolutely no way to prove that this "reality" thing even exists. We could all just be in the Matrix for all we know. Studies have shown that the brain cannot tell the difference between perceived external stimuli and internally created mental stimuli. So even if we measure something, and someone else verifies it, how do we know any of that actually happened?

And moving into a bit of quantum physics, there is the dreaded measurement problem. The simple fact that an object can exist in every conceivable place at every conceivable time until it is measured. Things are only definite when a conscious observer gives them definition; there are even some quantum particles that can even change their behavior if there is a conscious observer. We are finding more and more that the world is influenced by our consciousness more than we had ever imagined. In that case belief may play a much bigger role than empirical data. The only way a stable, consistent reality can exist is if a conscious observer is there to pull meaning out of the chaos. Without a conscious observer, reality would be an infinite sea of chaos where all probabilities exist simultaneously; if we could see reality as it truly is, it would look like a sea of static. So what is truth really but what we make of it?