Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Different Degrees of Truth?

OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Just a thought inspired by some philosophy reading.

John Locke made a distinction long ago between primary and secondary qualities. Simply put, primary qualities are "mind independent" qualities such as extension, form, shape, and motion. Then there are secondary, mind-dependent qualities such as color and heat. Does this make primary qualities truer than secondary ones?

Snakes, for example, see the world color-wise much differently than humans but they still perceive motion and shape. In fact, many animals have different color-schemes of the world due to how their eyes evolved, and with this in mind might statements about labeling colors be inherently less true than statements about shape or motion?

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities? Just think about dreams - mathematical and logical truths still apply in dreams, but certainly we are not actually perceiving true objects. Given that I don't follow Descartes' answer to the dream argument, I believe we can't 100% rule out the possibility of a dream existence.

I actually think the primary/secondary distinction was made by Galileo before Locke. Anyway, thoughts?
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 2:05:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Just a thought inspired by some philosophy reading.

John Locke made a distinction long ago between primary and secondary qualities. Simply put, primary qualities are "mind independent" qualities such as extension, form, shape, and motion. Then there are secondary, mind-dependent qualities such as color and heat. Does this make primary qualities truer than secondary ones?

Snakes, for example, see the world color-wise much differently than humans but they still perceive motion and shape. In fact, many animals have different color-schemes of the world due to how their eyes evolved, and with this in mind might statements about labeling colors be inherently less true than statements about shape or motion?

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities? Just think about dreams - mathematical and logical truths still apply in dreams, but certainly we are not actually perceiving true objects. Given that I don't follow Descartes' answer to the dream argument, I believe we can't 100% rule out the possibility of a dream existence.

I actually think the primary/secondary distinction was made by Galileo before Locke. Anyway, thoughts?

It's very interesting... But I would have to ask where consciousness fits into your perspective? Do you feel consciousness is primary or that mass is primary? In my perspective they are both primary and the great relationship between the two is what we call actuality or true reality.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 2:13:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 2:05:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Just a thought inspired by some philosophy reading.

John Locke made a distinction long ago between primary and secondary qualities. Simply put, primary qualities are "mind independent" qualities such as extension, form, shape, and motion. Then there are secondary, mind-dependent qualities such as color and heat. Does this make primary qualities truer than secondary ones?

Snakes, for example, see the world color-wise much differently than humans but they still perceive motion and shape. In fact, many animals have different color-schemes of the world due to how their eyes evolved, and with this in mind might statements about labeling colors be inherently less true than statements about shape or motion?

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities? Just think about dreams - mathematical and logical truths still apply in dreams, but certainly we are not actually perceiving true objects. Given that I don't follow Descartes' answer to the dream argument, I believe we can't 100% rule out the possibility of a dream existence.

I actually think the primary/secondary distinction was made by Galileo before Locke. Anyway, thoughts?

It's very interesting... But I would have to ask where consciousness fits into your perspective? Do you feel consciousness is primary or that mass is primary? In my perspective they are both primary and the great relationship between the two is what we call actuality or true reality.

I do believe in an external world outside the consciousness, so I guess mass would be primary?
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 2:57:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 2:13:50 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/26/2011 2:05:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Just a thought inspired by some philosophy reading.

John Locke made a distinction long ago between primary and secondary qualities. Simply put, primary qualities are "mind independent" qualities such as extension, form, shape, and motion. Then there are secondary, mind-dependent qualities such as color and heat. Does this make primary qualities truer than secondary ones?

Snakes, for example, see the world color-wise much differently than humans but they still perceive motion and shape. In fact, many animals have different color-schemes of the world due to how their eyes evolved, and with this in mind might statements about labeling colors be inherently less true than statements about shape or motion?

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities? Just think about dreams - mathematical and logical truths still apply in dreams, but certainly we are not actually perceiving true objects. Given that I don't follow Descartes' answer to the dream argument, I believe we can't 100% rule out the possibility of a dream existence.

I actually think the primary/secondary distinction was made by Galileo before Locke. Anyway, thoughts?

It's very interesting... But I would have to ask where consciousness fits into your perspective? Do you feel consciousness is primary or that mass is primary? In my perspective they are both primary and the great relationship between the two is what we call actuality or true reality.

I do believe in an external world outside the consciousness, so I guess mass would be primary?

But how can you perceive mass without consciousness? Without consciousness mass does not exist to you, as you would not exist to yourself.

So in essence, mass is primary to mass and consciousness is primary to consciousness.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 3:19:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 2:57:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/26/2011 2:13:50 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/26/2011 2:05:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Just a thought inspired by some philosophy reading.

John Locke made a distinction long ago between primary and secondary qualities. Simply put, primary qualities are "mind independent" qualities such as extension, form, shape, and motion. Then there are secondary, mind-dependent qualities such as color and heat. Does this make primary qualities truer than secondary ones?

Snakes, for example, see the world color-wise much differently than humans but they still perceive motion and shape. In fact, many animals have different color-schemes of the world due to how their eyes evolved, and with this in mind might statements about labeling colors be inherently less true than statements about shape or motion?

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities? Just think about dreams - mathematical and logical truths still apply in dreams, but certainly we are not actually perceiving true objects. Given that I don't follow Descartes' answer to the dream argument, I believe we can't 100% rule out the possibility of a dream existence.

I actually think the primary/secondary distinction was made by Galileo before Locke. Anyway, thoughts?

It's very interesting... But I would have to ask where consciousness fits into your perspective? Do you feel consciousness is primary or that mass is primary? In my perspective they are both primary and the great relationship between the two is what we call actuality or true reality.

I do believe in an external world outside the consciousness, so I guess mass would be primary?

But how can you perceive mass without consciousness? Without consciousness mass does not exist to you, as you would not exist to yourself.

So in essence, mass is primary to mass and consciousness is primary to consciousness.

This is actually Berkeley's view in a way. What Locke does in answering this is he basically brings up a list of phenomenon that would suggest the existence of an external world. I've admitted we can't be 100% sure that this world is real.

One of these examples that Locke uses is the example of the sensation of sun in one's eyes. This sensation is powerful, and we instinctually react. Moreover, when we try to recall this feeling it can never be as strong as the initial sensation. We were acted upon by the external world, and our minds cannot re-create that exact feeling. Locke cites a number of other points, this is just one I remember off the top of my head. I actually have an essay on this.

I want to hear your position a little more though, do you take Berkeley's view that "to be is to be perceived?"
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 3:25:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 3:19:49 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/26/2011 2:57:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/26/2011 2:13:50 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/26/2011 2:05:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Just a thought inspired by some philosophy reading.

John Locke made a distinction long ago between primary and secondary qualities. Simply put, primary qualities are "mind independent" qualities such as extension, form, shape, and motion. Then there are secondary, mind-dependent qualities such as color and heat. Does this make primary qualities truer than secondary ones?

Snakes, for example, see the world color-wise much differently than humans but they still perceive motion and shape. In fact, many animals have different color-schemes of the world due to how their eyes evolved, and with this in mind might statements about labeling colors be inherently less true than statements about shape or motion?

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities? Just think about dreams - mathematical and logical truths still apply in dreams, but certainly we are not actually perceiving true objects. Given that I don't follow Descartes' answer to the dream argument, I believe we can't 100% rule out the possibility of a dream existence.

I actually think the primary/secondary distinction was made by Galileo before Locke. Anyway, thoughts?

It's very interesting... But I would have to ask where consciousness fits into your perspective? Do you feel consciousness is primary or that mass is primary? In my perspective they are both primary and the great relationship between the two is what we call actuality or true reality.

I do believe in an external world outside the consciousness, so I guess mass would be primary?

But how can you perceive mass without consciousness? Without consciousness mass does not exist to you, as you would not exist to yourself.

So in essence, mass is primary to mass and consciousness is primary to consciousness.

This is actually Berkeley's view in a way. What Locke does in answering this is he basically brings up a list of phenomenon that would suggest the existence of an external world. I've admitted we can't be 100% sure that this world is real.

One of these examples that Locke uses is the example of the sensation of sun in one's eyes. This sensation is powerful, and we instinctually react. Moreover, when we try to recall this feeling it can never be as strong as the initial sensation. We were acted upon by the external world, and our minds cannot re-create that exact feeling. Locke cites a number of other points, this is just one I remember off the top of my head. I actually have an essay on this.

I want to hear your position a little more though, do you take Berkeley's view that "to be is to be perceived?"

I take more the view that "to be is primary to being". The reality of mass's existence is primary to that existence and the reality of consciousness's existence is primary to that existence.

The variable of existence is primary towards that existence.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 5:16:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Some things are more probable of being true than others given our current epistemological understanding? Sure, in that sense it's easy to conceive of 'truth' being in different degrees. But something being 'more true' would be a much more awkward and deep project to attempt.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 5:18:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Heat" is not secondary, "hot and cold" are. Heat is a measure of kenetic energy within the particles of something.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 5:19:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 5:18:15 PM, OreEle wrote:
"Heat" is not secondary, "hot and cold" are. Heat is a measure of kenetic energy within the particles of something.

likewise, neither is color. We understand about wavelengths of light, and our eyes may interpret those waves differently, but the light itself is physical. Likewise, our eyes may view shapes differently between different people.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 6:32:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities?

Number was a primary quality if I recall correctly. An objective truth is independent of observer, it is in fact a test of the observer as to its nature. If I put three balls on the table and ask you how many and you say two it either means you are mentally defective or ignorant. However if each ball is made out of a different material and I ask you which one has the most pleasant feel then the answer can not be used to gauge your mental state as everyone can give different answers and have perfectly functioning brains. Thus from one perspective a primary truth such as number is more true, however this does not in any way make it less true that for you a polished steel ball is more pleasant than a rubber one to hold. Asking if something is more true is like asking which DDO member has better posts, you have to really specifically define more or better.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 7:02:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 6:32:41 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities?

Number was a primary quality if I recall correctly. An objective truth is independent of observer, it is in fact a test of the observer as to its nature. If I put three balls on the table and ask you how many and you say two it either means you are mentally defective or ignorant. However if each ball is made out of a different material and I ask you which one has the most pleasant feel then the answer can not be used to gauge your mental state as everyone can give different answers and have perfectly functioning brains. Thus from one perspective a primary truth such as number is more true, however this does not in any way make it less true that for you a polished steel ball is more pleasant than a rubber one to hold. Asking if something is more true is like asking which DDO member has better posts, you have to really specifically define more or better.

Higher degree of certainty then? I remember Descartes spells out in his dream argument that we can be more certain of mathematical truths than material objects (I think he calls the former eternal truths) and I see some validity in that.

likewise, neither is color. We understand about wavelengths of light, and our eyes may interpret those waves differently, but the light itself is physical. Likewise, our eyes may view shapes differently between different people.

Even though we understand wavelengths it's common knowledge that colors are seen differently. No one should claim that a blue house is objectively blue, but we can certainly measure a wavelength and recognize that we view it as a certain color, but that the color is due to the mechanics of our eye. Even if we didn't have eyes we could determine solidity or shape.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 8:48:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 7:02:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Higher degree of certainty then?

This is a very different question though isn't it?

For example the two of us look at a woman and each speak of her beauty (or repulsiveness). Does the difference in our views give an indication of how close they are to the "real" truth. Is certainty a meaningful question?

Now on the other hand, same situation but OreEle is there as well and he asks us what do we think she does for a living. We each give an opinion based on what we observe and our experiences. Now is certainty a meaningful question?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 10:25:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 8:48:18 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/26/2011 7:02:08 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

Higher degree of certainty then?

This is a very different question though isn't it?

For example the two of us look at a woman and each speak of her beauty (or repulsiveness). Does the difference in our views give an indication of how close they are to the "real" truth. Is certainty a meaningful question?

Now on the other hand, same situation but OreEle is there as well and he asks us what do we think she does for a living. We each give an opinion based on what we observe and our experiences. Now is certainty a meaningful question?

Ok, it was a fall back concept. My brain has been getting worked the entire day, I don't know if you saw the art discussion I had with Ragnar and Quarter in the first topic.

Maybe a better scale is objective to subjective? I still feel funny placing these on this scale since we usually group certain ideas under these terms rather than thinking of one as "mostly subjective" or "mostly objective." However, I am more certain of mathematical and logical truths than the existence of cars or fire trucks. Colors should be mostly universal among humans, unlike physical beauty. With aesthetics and morality it becomes more complex.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 10:36:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 10:25:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

However, I am more certain of mathematical and logical truths than the existence of cars or fire trucks.

Ok consider this then, one of the fundamental laws of logic is that a proposition can either be true or its negation is true (or it is gibberish). However there is another concept in logic called fuzzy logic where something can be mostly true. The scale is no longer true/false but a scale from 0 to 1. This is not just theory it is actually used for example in motor controls to give greater feedback control when the drive hits a torque load. Now what does this imply about the nature of logical truth?
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 10:42:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 10:36:21 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/26/2011 10:25:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

However, I am more certain of mathematical and logical truths than the existence of cars or fire trucks.

Ok consider this then, one of the fundamental laws of logic is that a proposition can either be true or its negation is true (or it is gibberish). However there is another concept in logic called fuzzy logic where something can be mostly true. The scale is no longer true/false but a scale from 0 to 1. This is not just theory it is actually used for example in motor controls to give greater feedback control when the drive hits a torque load. Now what does this imply about the nature of logical truth?

There are degrees of it.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 10:51:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 10:36:21 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/26/2011 10:25:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

However, I am more certain of mathematical and logical truths than the existence of cars or fire trucks.

Ok consider this then, one of the fundamental laws of logic is that a proposition can either be true or its negation is true (or it is gibberish). However there is another concept in logic called fuzzy logic where something can be mostly true. The scale is no longer true/false but a scale from 0 to 1. This is not just theory it is actually used for example in motor controls to give greater feedback control when the drive hits a torque load. Now what does this imply about the nature of logical truth?

Not really. It's just a way of dealing with overlapping binaries and sloppy conceptual barriers. At best, "fuzzy logic" can be said to fall within the constraints of two-valued logic inasmuch as the problem of dealing with truth-values between "one" and "zero", i.e. a proposition and its negation is, is resolved by creating a special class of negation defined in multi-valued terms. In other words, fuzzy logic is just an imperfect solution for vague and intersecting binaries.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 10:51:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 10:51:19 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/26/2011 10:36:21 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/26/2011 10:25:28 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

However, I am more certain of mathematical and logical truths than the existence of cars or fire trucks.

Ok consider this then, one of the fundamental laws of logic is that a proposition can either be true or its negation is true (or it is gibberish). However there is another concept in logic called fuzzy logic where something can be mostly true. The scale is no longer true/false but a scale from 0 to 1. This is not just theory it is actually used for example in motor controls to give greater feedback control when the drive hits a torque load. Now what does this imply about the nature of logical truth?

Nothing, really. It's just a way of dealing with overlapping binaries and sloppy conceptual barriers. At best, "fuzzy logic" can be said to fall within the constraints of two-valued logic inasmuch as the problem of dealing with truth-values between "one" and "zero", i.e. a proposition and its negation is, is resolved by creating a special class of negation defined in multi-valued terms. In other words, fuzzy logic is just an imperfect solution for vague and intersecting binaries.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 11:08:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 10:42:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

There are degrees of it.

Essentially, there are many forms of logic which violate classical logic and as Krauss is fond of pointing out 2+2=5, for extremely large values of 2. Popper of course is fairly commonly source for certainty/reliability for scientific truth as he advocated that science is always about finding what is least wrong not what is absolutely true (which is meaningless).
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 11:14:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Cody, there is nothing vague about the constraints in torque feedback systems and fuzzy logic controls work exceptionally well and are far easier to understand and implement than the same system in traditional binary logic. This is why it is introduced into motor control systems as it often can produce excellent results without having to resort to adaptive neural networks. Now can you reframe it, of course you can, the most common one is to look at it as a probability instead of a truth value, i.e., 60% of the time a proposition will be true rather than the proposition is 60% true. The point is that both conceptual frameworks (logics) produce identical results and there is no way to say that either framework is objectively true.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 11:16:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 11:08:01 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/26/2011 10:42:02 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:

There are degrees of it.

Essentially, there are many forms of logic which violate classical logic and as Krauss is fond of pointing out 2+2=5, for extremely large values of 2. Popper of course is fairly commonly source for certainty/reliability for scientific truth as he advocated that science is always about finding what is least wrong not what is absolutely true (which is meaningless).

Do you know of any good resources on this topic? This was never mentioned in my logic course, and anything that can further my understanding would be great help.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 1:49:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
regarding the OP, it seems like you're not talking about differences in degrees of truth, but rather differences in truth conditions. such that if i said "the apple is red" the statement would be true ("red" being an effect the apple has on me essentially due its reflecting a certain wavelength of light) whereas if somehow another creature with a different brain said "the apple is red" it would be false because they weren't having a "red" experience when they said it (red defined as what humans experience when they see red).

but of course that assumes that everyone has a similar experience when seeing red, which isn't necessarily true. to counter that you simply define red as an effect of a wavelength of light around 650 nm on an entity capable of perceiving it in some fashion. then red is neither entirely in the object or entirely in the mind, but rather the product of an interaction between them. since the so called "secondary qualities" are all the same kinds of things (they impinge on our brains in a certain way and have certain effects) they can all be defined in a similar way. it seems like bringing in different notions of truth just confuses the issue.

its similar with the idea of fuzzy logic. what people do there is take a concept (say full) and another concept (empty) and oppose them, and then define many intermediate levels (half full, 20% full, etc). in reality though 10% full is just as "not empty" as 100% full. its a useful tool for thinking about certain qualities that can exist on a scale but is no challenge at all to bivalent logic as we understand it. not really. people like to claim it is, but it can be easily reconfigured to fit into the normal framework.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 1:58:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Truth? What is truth? Ho-ho-he!

Mathematics is as opinion based as morality. The world around us only makes sense when we impose sense upon it, through out mind.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 2:03:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/27/2011 1:58:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Truth? What is truth? Ho-ho-he!

Mathematics is as opinion based as morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The world around us only makes sense when we impose sense upon it, through out mind.

Well, obviously, because whether something "makes sense" is dependent on the mind trying to comprehend it. Objectively speaking, things simply are, i.e. independent of "sense", rather than nonsensical.
Dimmitri.C
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 3:06:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 2:57:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/26/2011 2:13:50 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/26/2011 2:05:22 PM, Justin_Chains wrote:
At 5/26/2011 1:59:44 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Just a thought inspired by some philosophy reading.

John Locke made a distinction long ago between primary and secondary qualities. Simply put, primary qualities are "mind independent" qualities such as extension, form, shape, and motion. Then there are secondary, mind-dependent qualities such as color and heat. Does this make primary qualities truer than secondary ones?

Snakes, for example, see the world color-wise much differently than humans but they still perceive motion and shape. In fact, many animals have different color-schemes of the world due to how their eyes evolved, and with this in mind might statements about labeling colors be inherently less true than statements about shape or motion?

Additionally, could logical or mathematical truths be more true than primary qualities? Just think about dreams - mathematical and logical truths still apply in dreams, but certainly we are not actually perceiving true objects. Given that I don't follow Descartes' answer to the dream argument, I believe we can't 100% rule out the possibility of a dream existence.

I actually think the primary/secondary distinction was made by Galileo before Locke. Anyway, thoughts?

It's very interesting... But I would have to ask where consciousness fits into your perspective? Do you feel consciousness is primary or that mass is primary? In my perspective they are both primary and the great relationship between the two is what we call actuality or true reality.

I do believe in an external world outside the consciousness, so I guess mass would be primary?

But how can you perceive mass without consciousness? Without consciousness mass does not exist to you, as you would not exist to yourself.

So in essence, mass is primary to mass and consciousness is primary to consciousness.

Epistemic conceivability does not imply metaphysical possibility. This is a logical non-sequitur.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 3:13:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/27/2011 2:03:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/27/2011 1:58:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Truth? What is truth? Ho-ho-he!

Mathematics is as opinion based as morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The world around us only makes sense when we impose sense upon it, through out mind.

Well, obviously, because whether something "makes sense" is dependent on the mind trying to comprehend it. Objectively speaking, things simply are, i.e. independent of "sense", rather than nonsensical.

It can not be said whether they "simply are". Just another concept that can only encompass the level of understanding that created it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 3:22:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/27/2011 3:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/27/2011 2:03:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/27/2011 1:58:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Truth? What is truth? Ho-ho-he!

Mathematics is as opinion based as morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The world around us only makes sense when we impose sense upon it, through out mind.

Well, obviously, because whether something "makes sense" is dependent on the mind trying to comprehend it. Objectively speaking, things simply are, i.e. independent of "sense", rather than nonsensical.

It can not be said whether they "simply are". Just another concept that can only encompass the level of understanding that created it.

No matter what way they are, that's the way they are. Even to say something as incoherent as "they aren't how they are" implies that they are such a way. Even your statement about the indescribable nature of reality implies that they are a certain way. :P
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 3:39:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/27/2011 3:22:57 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/27/2011 3:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/27/2011 2:03:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/27/2011 1:58:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Truth? What is truth? Ho-ho-he!

Mathematics is as opinion based as morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The world around us only makes sense when we impose sense upon it, through out mind.

Well, obviously, because whether something "makes sense" is dependent on the mind trying to comprehend it. Objectively speaking, things simply are, i.e. independent of "sense", rather than nonsensical.

It can not be said whether they "simply are". Just another concept that can only encompass the level of understanding that created it.

No matter what way they are, that's the way they are. Even to say something as incoherent as "they aren't how they are" implies that they are such a way. Even your statement about the indescribable nature of reality implies that they are a certain way. :P

What I'm saying is that every thought we can conjure in some attempt to understand anything will ultimately be incoherent.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 3:49:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/27/2011 3:39:13 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/27/2011 3:22:57 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/27/2011 3:13:01 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 5/27/2011 2:03:19 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/27/2011 1:58:15 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Truth? What is truth? Ho-ho-he!

Mathematics is as opinion based as morality.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The world around us only makes sense when we impose sense upon it, through out mind.

Well, obviously, because whether something "makes sense" is dependent on the mind trying to comprehend it. Objectively speaking, things simply are, i.e. independent of "sense", rather than nonsensical.

It can not be said whether they "simply are". Just another concept that can only encompass the level of understanding that created it.

No matter what way they are, that's the way they are. Even to say something as incoherent as "they aren't how they are" implies that they are such a way. Even your statement about the indescribable nature of reality implies that they are a certain way. :P

What I'm saying is that every thought we can conjure in some attempt to understand anything will ultimately be incoherent.

Incoherent by what standard?
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 2:11:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/27/2011 1:49:47 AM, belle wrote:
regarding the OP, it seems like you're not talking about differences in degrees of truth, but rather differences in truth conditions. such that if i said "the apple is red" the statement would be true ("red" being an effect the apple has on me essentially due its reflecting a certain wavelength of light) whereas if somehow another creature with a different brain said "the apple is red" it would be false because they weren't having a "red" experience when they said it (red defined as what humans experience when they see red).

but of course that assumes that everyone has a similar experience when seeing red, which isn't necessarily true. to counter that you simply define red as an effect of a wavelength of light around 650 nm on an entity capable of perceiving it in some fashion. then red is neither entirely in the object or entirely in the mind, but rather the product of an interaction between them. since the so called "secondary qualities" are all the same kinds of things (they impinge on our brains in a certain way and have certain effects) they can all be defined in a similar way. it seems like bringing in different notions of truth just confuses the issue.

its similar with the idea of fuzzy logic. what people do there is take a concept (say full) and another concept (empty) and oppose them, and then define many intermediate levels (half full, 20% full, etc). in reality though 10% full is just as "not empty" as 100% full. its a useful tool for thinking about certain qualities that can exist on a scale but is no challenge at all to bivalent logic as we understand it. not really. people like to claim it is, but it can be easily reconfigured to fit into the normal framework.

Intelligent.