Total Posts:382|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How do we ascertain the truth?

SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?

On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?
Goldberg123
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 1:22:13 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?

On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?

Oh ,the topic is about "truth system" not the abilities of philosophers. Truth have many grounds looking back that of Tarski and Kripke, we can now see that truth is merely defined like "p is true if and only if p", we use the usable terms such "if-then", and "if and only if". Truth can be defined now looking on the teachings and works of Carnap, Russell, Ramsey formula, Strawson and Evans group analysis, Tarski but most of all Kripke.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 1:27:07 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith

Are you interested in truth? Why or why not? Do you have any thought pnbthe dilemma Nietzsche has presented us with? Any thoughts on discerning falsehoods so that the truth can be more readily recognized? And thank you for your thoughts.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
Goldberg123
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 1:28:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?

We can always know the truth, for example I am unaware of your parent's existence but yet I "can" (ability) know that they are existing and have existed based on backwards causation understanding and common knowledge, so saying there is an unknown truth (in your objective side so-called) is a blatant mistake. Subjective reality would never be false, how sure are you on that subjective phrase then? If you are to affirm any subjective claims ought to be false then that includes yours. Subjective truth will never be false for common knowledge and understanding preceded by observation was never false. You do realize what Putnam said "meaning ain't just in the head", that's for meaning not for truth. "Truth can be in the head and can never be beyond our ability to be recognized".
Goldberg123
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 1:31:03 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?

Maybe the problem is, you are confused on grounds of understanding what is truth and what is "ability". The human mind can understand what is true easily and not easily, but it cannot be beyond his ability to understand it. Historians have precise understanding in history even if it's not precisely manifested it can be asserted that they did their best understanding the truth of yesterday.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 2:09:23 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 1:28:03 PM, Goldberg123 wrote:
We can always know the truth, for example I am unaware of your parent's existence but yet I "can" (ability) know that they are existing and have existed based on backwards causation understanding and common knowledge, so saying there is an unknown truth (in your objective side so-called) is a blatant mistake. Subjective reality would never be false, how sure are you on that subjective phrase then? If you are to affirm any subjective claims ought to be false then that includes yours. Subjective truth will never be false for common knowledge and understanding preceded by observation was never false. You do realize what Putnam said "meaning ain't just in the head", that's for meaning not for truth. "Truth can be in the head and can never be beyond our ability to be recognized".

There are many facts we cannot discern in this way. What is life? How did it begin? How much more life is there in the universe? What, if anything, is beyond the universe?

Then there is the problem of logical fallacies. Often a surmise that seems logical with the information we have becomes impossible when a new fact is discovered (such as the notion that the stars and sun spin around the earth the disproval of which is commonly attributed to capernicus)

Then there is the problem of our subjective reality itself. Not just that our senses can be fooled or that hallucinations are possible, but also the very fact that they are subjective.
Take for an example a red ball. In reality the ball tends to absorb the wavelengths of light other than those we interpret as red. Our red ball is actually red repellent. Now take the red ball and put it under a blue light, does the ball turn black? Subjectively yes, objectively it is the same ball with the same properties.
Our senses can also be fooled with simple stage magic and even by our own preconceptions.

And if subjective truth could never be false there would be no disagreements, at least not about observable reality. Yet we find that disagreements about what is observable are common place. Disagreements between friends on a casual basis, but also differences of oppinion within the scientific community about the nature of the laws of reality.

And finally there is the problem of our flawed biological brain which is designed to discern patterns and assign agency to occurances (looking for cause and effect). Now these are both useful skills, they have brought us this far. However we do have a tendency to detect patterns where none exist and to assume a causality of events for which we have not observed a cause, that doesn't mean there is no cause, but it often means we have guessed wrong.

Please if you have any thoughts on how we may go about minimizing or at least slightly mitigating all or some of these problems share your thoughts.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 2:20:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 1:31:03 PM, Goldberg123 wrote:
Maybe the problem is, you are confused on grounds of understanding what is truth and what is "ability". The human mind can understand what is true easily and not easily, but it cannot be beyond his ability to understand it. Historians have precise understanding in history even if it's not precisely manifested it can be asserted that they did their best understanding the truth of yesterday.

That which is recorded as historical is also subject to our misconceptions, only we must also discern whether or not the persons recording history had any such misconceptions and we must interpret what they meant at all. Also is our tendency to record as fact that which is merely a good story. Washington and the cherry tree, Newton and the apple. These stories are generally considered apocryphal.

Is there any way to know which version of "history" is true or still least which contains the fewest falsehoods?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
keithprosser
Posts: 6,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 2:27:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?

I'm a bit wary of calling the approximation to reality we carry around in our heads a different sort of reality - as the OP implies, there is but one reality (ie 'objective reality')and we perceive approximations to 'reality'. We are not conscious of 'subjective reality' - we are conscious of real perceptions.

The OP asks: "How do we best reach any objective truths?" and asserts it is impossible. I feel that is a pessimistic view because I'll concede there must be a gap between our preception of reality and reality per se, that gap can be continually narrowed and made negligibly small.

But to do that we have to make some assumptions. I think a very important assumption is that reality is self-consistent. That is often how we come to realise our knowledge - or perception/approximation - of reality is seriously wrong; something appears inconsistent. Science is all about showing that everything is connected in vast web of mutual support with no actual paradoxes. Science is strong because its like a bridge made of interlocking girders. Science is a collection of unconnected facts but a web of inter-depedencies and our undertanding of reality increases - the gap between reality and perception narrows - as more and more points are drawn into the grand scheme.

How can we tell when our perception (what the OP calls 'subective reality') is wrong? The clearest sign is that it is impossible to link something into the big picture. Something like ESP can't be added to the big picture we have so far without completely dismantling it - ie throwing away all the millions of inter-connections that work and serve us well when there is no need because ESP is not proven to exist. Either ESP is wrong or everything else is, and its no contest.

But sometimes a radical revision is required - QM and GR requied a great deal of revision of our understanding of reality, a revision that is still ongoing.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 3:20:53 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 2:27:43 PM, keithprosser wrote:
I'm a bit wary of calling the approximation to reality we carry around in our heads a different sort of reality - as the OP implies, there is but one reality (ie 'objective reality')and we perceive approximations to 'reality'. We are not conscious of 'subjective reality' - we are conscious of real perceptions.

The OP asks: "How do we best reach any objective truths?" and asserts it is impossible. I feel that is a pessimistic view because I'll concede there must be a gap between our preception of reality and reality per se, that gap can be continually narrowed and made negligibly small.

But to do that we have to make some assumptions. I think a very important assumption is that reality is self-consistent. That is often how we come to realise our knowledge - or perception/approximation - of reality is seriously wrong; something appears inconsistent. Science is all about showing that everything is connected in vast web of mutual support with no actual paradoxes. Science is strong because its like a bridge made of interlocking girders. Science is a collection of unconnected facts but a web of inter-depedencies and our undertanding of reality increases - the gap between reality and perception narrows - as more and more points are drawn into the grand scheme.

How can we tell when our perception (what the OP calls 'subective reality') is wrong? The clearest sign is that it is impossible to link something into the big picture. Something like ESP can't be added to the big picture we have so far without completely dismantling it - ie throwing away all the millions of inter-connections that work and serve us well when there is no need because ESP is not proven to exist. Either ESP is wrong or everything else is, and its no contest.

But sometimes a radical revision is required - QM and GR requied a great deal of revision of our understanding of reality, a revision that is still ongoing.

The approximation we carry in our heads is like a simulation of reality. To call it a reality at all is actually quite generous of us, but you are correct that it is somewhat besides the point.

I did not and do not assert that no objective reality can be known. The trouble is recognizing truth. The methods you have outlined are generally excepted by logicians. Occam's Razer is a particularly useful in this regard. As you illustrated in your esp example objective reality must be mostly deduced rather than directly observed.

Do you have any other thoughts?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 4:45:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?

There is no "objective truth". There are quantifiable (meaningless) facts and there are qualitative (meaningful) opinions.

Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality".

Fact: "a thing that is indisputably the case".

Truth requires facts and facts require indisputability. Therefore truth must be indisputable.

Indisputability is decided by consensus (Popper).

Objective existence (Naive Realism) has been debunked by Kant.

Please take a few minutes to consider this video -
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/12/2017 7:17:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 4:45:09 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?

There is no "objective truth". There are quantifiable (meaningless) facts and there are qualitative (meaningful) opinions.

Truth: "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality".

Fact: "a thing that is indisputably the case".

Truth requires facts and facts require indisputability. Therefore truth must be indisputable.

Indisputability is decided by consensus (Popper).

Objective existence (Naive Realism) has been debunked by Kant.

Please take a few minutes to consider this video -



And interesting video but it confuses quantum realism with philosophical realism. The "observer" in the two slits experiment was an apparatus. The observer in question was not a conscious observer.
Conclusion: an outside "consciousness" is neither necessary nor implied.
That the wavelengths exists in the absence of an observer is proof that quantum waveforms exist independent of our observation.
Conclusion: There is an objective reality even if the simple act of observing said reality changes it's nature.
In fact that simply becomes an observable part of objective reality.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 4:57:57 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 1:27:07 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith

Are you interested in truth?
I think the point is rather obvious. Are you sure you are interested in the "truth" or do you at least recognize that your biases and preconceptions might delude you into believing you "look for truth" as opposed to merely reestablishing your already assumed "truths"?
Why or why not? Do you have any thought pnbthe dilemma Nietzsche has presented us with? Any thoughts on discerning falsehoods so that the truth can be more readily recognized? And thank you for your thoughts.
I agree with my dads little brother...

"Even as most intellectuals and students and "educators" among us imagine they are learning to criticize and sever those prejudices and presuppositions, those biases and preconceptions are mutating like Hydra and putting forth new buds and nodes with new faces on them to go on functioning sub rosa within his "new regime" of clarified and purified self-determination. This unctuous and protean power of biasing principles to vary their manifestation or expression is one of the premier reasons that humans overwhelmingly need living and in-your-face dialogue, need conversational confrontation and polemics, in order to grasp philosophical, spiritual and moral truths, i.e. values and axioms: without another intensive and acute individual to catch their blindsidedness and call their hand on this permutational untruth, humans only succeed in "rearranging their prejudices," not truly emancipating themselves from their enslaving abysmalisms.
K.Smith
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 5:22:36 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 4:57:57 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/12/2017 1:27:07 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith

Are you interested in truth?
I think the point is rather obvious. Are you sure you are interested in the "truth" or do you at least recognize that your biases and preconceptions might delude you into believing you "look for truth" as opposed to merely reestablishing your already assumed "truths"?
Why or why not? Do you have any thought pnbthe dilemma Nietzsche has presented us with? Any thoughts on discerning falsehoods so that the truth can be more readily recognized? And thank you for your thoughts.
I agree with my dads little brother...

"Even as most intellectuals and students and "educators" among us imagine they are learning to criticize and sever those prejudices and presuppositions, those biases and preconceptions are mutating like Hydra and putting forth new buds and nodes with new faces on them to go on functioning sub rosa within his "new regime" of clarified and purified self-determination. This unctuous and protean power of biasing principles to vary their manifestation or expression is one of the premier reasons that humans overwhelmingly need living and in-your-face dialogue, need conversational confrontation and polemics, in order to grasp philosophical, spiritual and moral truths, i.e. values and axioms: without another intensive and acute individual to catch their blindsidedness and call their hand on this permutational untruth, humans only succeed in "rearranging their prejudices," not truly emancipating themselves from their enslaving abysmalisms.
K.Smith

Do you think we can help each other?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 5:35:17 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 5:22:36 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/13/2017 4:57:57 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/12/2017 1:27:07 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith

Are you interested in truth?
I think the point is rather obvious. Are you sure you are interested in the "truth" or do you at least recognize that your biases and preconceptions might delude you into believing you "look for truth" as opposed to merely reestablishing your already assumed "truths"?
Why or why not? Do you have any thought pnbthe dilemma Nietzsche has presented us with? Any thoughts on discerning falsehoods so that the truth can be more readily recognized? And thank you for your thoughts.
I agree with my dads little brother...

"Even as most intellectuals and students and "educators" among us imagine they are learning to criticize and sever those prejudices and presuppositions, those biases and preconceptions are mutating like Hydra and putting forth new buds and nodes with new faces on them to go on functioning sub rosa within his "new regime" of clarified and purified self-determination. This unctuous and protean power of biasing principles to vary their manifestation or expression is one of the premier reasons that humans overwhelmingly need living and in-your-face dialogue, need conversational confrontation and polemics, in order to grasp philosophical, spiritual and moral truths, i.e. values and axioms: without another intensive and acute individual to catch their blindsidedness and call their hand on this permutational untruth, humans only succeed in "rearranging their prejudices," not truly emancipating themselves from their enslaving abysmalisms.
K.Smith

Do you think we can help each other?
What do you think you need help with or that I need help with?
And why do you presume I am in need of "truth".....
I merely entertain myself by trying to be a pseudo~contrarian.....lol
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 5:37:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 5:35:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/13/2017 5:22:36 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/13/2017 4:57:57 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/12/2017 1:27:07 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith

Are you interested in truth?
I think the point is rather obvious. Are you sure you are interested in the "truth" or do you at least recognize that your biases and preconceptions might delude you into believing you "look for truth" as opposed to merely reestablishing your already assumed "truths"?
Why or why not? Do you have any thought pnbthe dilemma Nietzsche has presented us with? Any thoughts on discerning falsehoods so that the truth can be more readily recognized? And thank you for your thoughts.
I agree with my dads little brother...

"Even as most intellectuals and students and "educators" among us imagine they are learning to criticize and sever those prejudices and presuppositions, those biases and preconceptions are mutating like Hydra and putting forth new buds and nodes with new faces on them to go on functioning sub rosa within his "new regime" of clarified and purified self-determination. This unctuous and protean power of biasing principles to vary their manifestation or expression is one of the premier reasons that humans overwhelmingly need living and in-your-face dialogue, need conversational confrontation and polemics, in order to grasp philosophical, spiritual and moral truths, i.e. values and axioms: without another intensive and acute individual to catch their blindsidedness and call their hand on this permutational untruth, humans only succeed in "rearranging their prejudices," not truly emancipating themselves from their enslaving abysmalisms.
K.Smith

Do you think we can help each other?
What do you think you need help with or that I need help with?
And why do you presume I am in need of "truth".....
I merely entertain myself by trying to be a pseudo~contrarian.....lol

I consider knowledge generally preferable to ignorance. Just a general tendency.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,682
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 6:43:44 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 5:37:28 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/13/2017 5:35:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/13/2017 5:22:36 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/13/2017 4:57:57 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/12/2017 1:27:07 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith

Are you interested in truth?
I think the point is rather obvious. Are you sure you are interested in the "truth" or do you at least recognize that your biases and preconceptions might delude you into believing you "look for truth" as opposed to merely reestablishing your already assumed "truths"?
Why or why not? Do you have any thought pnbthe dilemma Nietzsche has presented us with? Any thoughts on discerning falsehoods so that the truth can be more readily recognized? And thank you for your thoughts.
I agree with my dads little brother...

"Even as most intellectuals and students and "educators" among us imagine they are learning to criticize and sever those prejudices and presuppositions, those biases and preconceptions are mutating like Hydra and putting forth new buds and nodes with new faces on them to go on functioning sub rosa within his "new regime" of clarified and purified self-determination. This unctuous and protean power of biasing principles to vary their manifestation or expression is one of the premier reasons that humans overwhelmingly need living and in-your-face dialogue, need conversational confrontation and polemics, in order to grasp philosophical, spiritual and moral truths, i.e. values and axioms: without another intensive and acute individual to catch their blindsidedness and call their hand on this permutational untruth, humans only succeed in "rearranging their prejudices," not truly emancipating themselves from their enslaving abysmalisms.
K.Smith

Do you think we can help each other?
What do you think you need help with or that I need help with?
And why do you presume I am in need of "truth".....
I merely entertain myself by trying to be a pseudo~contrarian.....lol

I consider knowledge generally preferable to ignorance. Just a general tendency.
And the filter that we both have that may cloud this "knowledge" may make the knowledge not what we might hope or think it is. I'm here to attempt to argue for what I don't think, at least most of the time. For instance, on another thread Bulproof posted the following....
"Godists cannot prove (it is true) gods exist therefore the only logical conclusion is that (it is false) that god(s) exist...
This of course is the fallacy of negative proof....When it was pointed out to him, he then replied with a different issue stating this....
A claim is either true or false...and then some nonsense "transference" about what drugs I'm on..lol....So I got my entertainment and I'm through with his usual lack of intellectual integrity.
I like what people say or I try to dismiss what they say by taking a position that it has a lack of logical consistency. Anything other than that doesn't interest me.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 3:25:32 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 6:43:44 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/13/2017 5:37:28 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/13/2017 5:35:17 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/13/2017 5:22:36 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/13/2017 4:57:57 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 12/12/2017 1:27:07 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/12/2017 11:27:42 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
On all vital existential questions, human beings have biases more deepset than they can begin to comprehend. The task of philosophers is not to work up fanciful idealistic rhetoric designed to appeal to hypothetical disinterested-bourgeois bipeds, but to get to know what the actual or extant preconceptions and worldviews of human beings really are, and WHY they ultimately are such as they are. It may be interesting ad hominem how and why humans might happen to presume themselves to be impartial listeners. But the truly challenging question is Nietzsche's: just how the hell did such a species ever imagine that it might want to know what "the truth" is, in the first place? Why would we presume ourselves to be at all INTERESTED in "the truth"?
K.Smith

Are you interested in truth?
I think the point is rather obvious. Are you sure you are interested in the "truth" or do you at least recognize that your biases and preconceptions might delude you into believing you "look for truth" as opposed to merely reestablishing your already assumed "truths"?
Why or why not? Do you have any thought pnbthe dilemma Nietzsche has presented us with? Any thoughts on discerning falsehoods so that the truth can be more readily recognized? And thank you for your thoughts.
I agree with my dads little brother...

"Even as most intellectuals and students and "educators" among us imagine they are learning to criticize and sever those prejudices and presuppositions, those biases and preconceptions are mutating like Hydra and putting forth new buds and nodes with new faces on them to go on functioning sub rosa within his "new regime" of clarified and purified self-determination. This unctuous and protean power of biasing principles to vary their manifestation or expression is one of the premier reasons that humans overwhelmingly need living and in-your-face dialogue, need conversational confrontation and polemics, in order to grasp philosophical, spiritual and moral truths, i.e. values and axioms: without another intensive and acute individual to catch their blindsidedness and call their hand on this permutational untruth, humans only succeed in "rearranging their prejudices," not truly emancipating themselves from their enslaving abysmalisms.
K.Smith

Do you think we can help each other?
What do you think you need help with or that I need help with?
And why do you presume I am in need of "truth".....
I merely entertain myself by trying to be a pseudo~contrarian.....lol

I consider knowledge generally preferable to ignorance. Just a general tendency.
And the filter that we both have that may cloud this "knowledge" may make the knowledge not what we might hope or think it is. I'm here to attempt to argue for what I don't think, at least most of the time. For instance, on another thread Bulproof posted the following....
"Godists cannot prove (it is true) gods exist therefore the only logical conclusion is that (it is false) that god(s) exist...
This of course is the fallacy of negative proof....When it was pointed out to him, he then replied with a different issue stating this....
A claim is either true or false...and then some nonsense "transference" about what drugs I'm on..lol....So I got my entertainment and I'm through with his usual lack of intellectual integrity.
I like what people say or I try to dismiss what they say by taking a position that it has a lack of logical consistency. Anything other than that doesn't interest me.

Do you feel this brings anyone closer to truth?
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 6:15:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 7:17:17 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/12/2017 4:45:09 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:



And interesting video but it confuses quantum realism with philosophical realism. The "observer" in the two slits experiment was an apparatus. The observer in question was not a conscious observer.

The presence of the detector makes no difference if there is no data stream recorded for a conscious mind to observe.

Conclusion: an outside "consciousness" is neither necessary nor implied.

We are probably (mostly) self-observing.

That the wavelengths exists in the absence of an observer is proof that quantum waveforms exist independent of our observation.

But objects and ideas do not exist independent of our observation.

And we can't say anything about what the "waveform" might be when we don't detect or observe them at all. I mean, we call them "waveforms" when we observe them indirectly, but when we don't detect them at all, who the heck knows what they might be.

Conclusion: There is an objective reality even if the simple act of observing said reality changes it's nature.

I agree with Kant on this. "Objective" reality looks different to each person, which is the very definition of "subjective".

In fact that simply becomes an observable part of objective reality.

The whole conceptual appeal of "objective reality" (to most people) is that it is supposedly unchanging and indisputable.

Kant's noumea (objective reality) is basically unknowable and unobservable.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 6:41:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
And interesting video but it confuses quantum realism with philosophical realism. The "observer" in the two slits experiment was an apparatus. The observer in question was not a conscious observer.

The presence of the detector makes no difference if there is no data stream recorded for a conscious mind to observe.

So we have two propositions
1. The mere presence of the detector is enough to collapse a waveforms into matter.
2. The detection process itself is not enough, someone must also consciously observe the result in order for the waveform to collapse into matter.
How do we test these hypothesis? Also whichever is true is objectively true.
This is however a false dichotomy and ignores the possibility that both could be simultaneously true, or both simultaneously false, or that one is true some of the time while the other is true at other times.

Conclusion: an outside "consciousness" is neither necessary nor implied.

We are probably (mostly) self-observing.

How do we test this hypothesis?

That the wavelengths exists in the absence of an observer is proof that quantum waveforms exist independent of our observation.

But objects and ideas do not exist independent of our observation.

Objects do thoughts do not. Macro objects may be built on quantum rules at the quantum level but they do behave differently. In absence of evidence that particles collapse back into waveforms when unobserved I remain skeptical that objects do not exist when unobserved.

And we can't say anything about what the "waveform" might be when we don't detect or observe them at all. I mean, we call them "waveforms" when we observe them indirectly, but when we don't detect them at all, who the heck knows what they might be.

So the correct answer is we don't know. I'm comfortable with this answer. It is however still worthwhile to pursue the truth of the matter.

Conclusion: There is an objective reality even if the simple act of observing said reality changes it's nature.

I agree with Kant on this. "Objective" reality looks different to each person, which is the very definition of "subjective".

Our subjective reality is not the same as objective reality. We can deduced facts about objective reality but we can never experience it directly.

In fact that simply becomes an observable part of objective reality.

The whole conceptual appeal of "objective reality" (to most people) is that it is supposedly unchanging and indisputable.

I am not made uncomfortable by the idea of a fluid reality.

Kant's noumea (objective reality) is basically unknowable and unobservable.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 10:32:59 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 6:41:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
And interesting video but it confuses quantum realism with philosophical realism. The "observer" in the two slits experiment was an apparatus. The observer in question was not a conscious observer.

The presence of the detector makes no difference if there is no data stream recorded for a conscious mind to observe.

So we have two propositions
1. The mere presence of the detector is enough to collapse a waveforms into matter.
2. The detection process itself is not enough, someone must also consciously observe the result in order for the waveform to collapse into matter.
How do we test these hypothesis? Also whichever is true is objectively true.
This is however a false dichotomy and ignores the possibility that both could be simultaneously true, or both simultaneously false, or that one is true some of the time while the other is true at other times.

It's pretty simple. You power up the detector, but you disconnect the data feed. If you do this, you find the waveform fails to collapse.

Conclusion: an outside "consciousness" is neither necessary nor implied.

We are probably (mostly) self-observing.

How do we test this hypothesis?

This may not be a testable hypothesis, however, I would dispute the "logical necessity" of some sort of "super observer" as postulated in the video.

That the wavelengths exists in the absence of an observer is proof that quantum waveforms exist independent of our observation.

But objects and ideas do not exist independent of our observation.

Objects do thoughts do not. Macro objects may be built on quantum rules at the quantum level but they do behave differently. In absence of evidence that particles collapse back into waveforms when unobserved I remain skeptical that objects do not exist when unobserved.

Unobserved objects are in a superstate (waveform). That was settled by Schrodinger.

The quantum eraser experiments are being scaled up to molecules from mere photons. They hope to be able to conduct the same tests with something like a bacteria. The scientists have speculated that the results would hold true, even if it was conducted with a bowling ball, a human being, or the planet earth.

And we can't say anything about what the "waveform" might be when we don't detect or observe them at all. I mean, we call them "waveforms" when we observe them indirectly, but when we don't detect them at all, who the heck knows what they might be.

So the correct answer is we don't know. I'm comfortable with this answer. It is however still worthwhile to pursue the truth of the matter.

What is unobservable and unknowable is by definition, beyond our epistemological limits.

Conclusion: There is an objective reality even if the simple act of observing said reality changes it's nature.

I agree with Kant on this. "Objective" reality looks different to each person, which is the very definition of "subjective".

Our subjective reality is not the same as objective reality. We can deduced facts about objective reality but we can never experience it directly.

Kant postulates that even though we can speculate that noumena "exists" (as some sort of logical necessity) we can never know anything about it, either directly or indirectly.

In fact that simply becomes an observable part of objective reality.

The whole conceptual appeal of "objective reality" (to most people) is that it is supposedly unchanging and indisputable.

I am not made uncomfortable by the idea of a fluid reality.

Perhaps we are approaching common ground.

Kant's noumea (objective reality) is basically unknowable and unobservable.
sadolite
Posts: 10,021
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2017 10:54:44 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
How do we ascertain the truth? One usually already knows the truth, but verifying it involves asking direct questions and getting direct answers. If you don't get direct answers then you know the truth to your question.
Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2017 4:25:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 10:32:59 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 12/13/2017 6:41:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
And interesting video but it confuses quantum realism with philosophical realism. The "observer" in the two slits experiment was an apparatus. The observer in question was not a conscious observer.

The presence of the detector makes no difference if there is no data stream recorded for a conscious mind to observe.

So we have two propositions
1. The mere presence of the detector is enough to collapse a waveforms into matter.
2. The detection process itself is not enough, someone must also consciously observe the result in order for the waveform to collapse into matter.
How do we test these hypothesis? Also whichever is true is objectively true.
This is however a false dichotomy and ignores the possibility that both could be simultaneously true, or both simultaneously false, or that one is true some of the time while the other is true at other times.

It's pretty simple. You power up the detector, but you disconnect the data feed. If you do this, you find the waveform fails to collapse

Do you have a citation?

Conclusion: an outside "consciousness" is neither necessary nor implied.

We are probably (mostly) self-observing.

We could be entirely self observing since the test in the video also proves reverse causality

How do we test this hypothesis?

This may not be a testable hypothesis, however, I would dispute the "logical necessity" of some sort of "super observer" as postulated in the video.

We may be our own super observer (again backloading history with reverse causality)

That the wavelengths exists in the absence of an observer is proof that quantum waveforms exist independent of our observation.

But objects and ideas do not exist independent of our observation.

Objects do thoughts do not. Macro objects may be built on quantum rules at the quantum level but they do behave differently. In absence of evidence that particles collapse back into waveforms when unobserved I remain skeptical that objects do not exist when unobserved.

Unobserved objects are in a superstate (waveform). That was settled by Schrodinger.

The quantum eraser experiments are being scaled up to molecules from mere photons. They hope to be able to conduct the same tests with something like a bacteria. The scientists have speculated that the results would hold true, even if it was conducted with a bowling ball, a human being, or the planet earth.

And we can't say anything about what the "waveform" might be when we don't detect or observe them at all. I mean, we call them "waveforms" when we observe them indirectly, but when we don't detect them at all, who the heck knows what they might be.

So the correct answer is we don't know. I'm comfortable with this answer. It is however still worthwhile to pursue the truth of the matter.

What is unobservable and unknowable is by definition, beyond our epistemological limits.

But even if that unobserved unknowable state is beyond our ability to quantify it is still a part of objective reality.

Conclusion: There is an objective reality even if the simple act of observing said reality changes it's nature.

I agree with Kant on this. "Objective" reality looks different to each person, which is the very definition of "subjective".

Our subjective reality is not the same as objective reality. We can deduced facts about objective reality but we can never experience it directly.

Kant postulates that even though we can speculate that noumena "exists" (as some sort of logical necessity) we can never know anything about it, either directly or indirectly.

In fact that simply becomes an observable part of objective reality.

The whole conceptual appeal of "objective reality" (to most people) is that it is supposedly unchanging and indisputable.

I am not made uncomfortable by the idea of a fluid reality.

Perhaps we are approaching common ground.

Perhaps but first you'll have to stop viewing time as a bullet train that only goes in one direction.

Kant's noumea (objective reality) is basically unknowable and unobservable.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
SecularMerlin
Posts: 5,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2017 5:10:20 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 10:54:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
How do we ascertain the truth? One usually already knows the truth, but verifying it involves asking direct questions and getting direct answers. If you don't get direct answers then you know the truth to your question.

A man who assumes he already knows the truth is often wrong. Even Einstein made presumptions that were proved wrong. Even the most direct questions rarely have answers that are straightforward or easy. When someone tells you that something is easy or to good to be true or exactly what you presuppose be suspicious of him. Also anyone that doesn't want you to think, that never challenges you ideas or that praises you when you are wrong is not your friend.
The only true wisdom lies in knowing that you know nothing.
-Socrates

Imagination is the only weapon in the war against reality
-Lewis Carrol
3RU7AL
Posts: 2,182
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2017 5:33:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/14/2017 4:25:43 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:

It's pretty simple. You power up the detector, but you disconnect the data feed. If you do this, you find the waveform fails to collapse

Do you have a citation?

You have a photon that may take path 1 or path 2.

You set a detector (perhaps undeveloped film) beyond the point of decision.

Your detector is not precise enough to determine if the photon decided to take path 1 or path 2, so you "help it out" by marking one of the paths with a polarizer.

Now the detector can see if the photon chose path 1 or path 2 because only path 1 causes the photon to become polarized.

One of the interesting quirks of this experiment is that the polarizer can be placed either in front of path 1 or behind path 1 and the effect is the same.

The upshot here is that if you can detect which path the photon passes through, then it acts like a billiard ball.

If you polarize both paths (or no paths), you get a wave interference pattern.

https://www.google.com...
http://strangepaths.com...

We could be entirely self observing since the test in the video also proves reverse causality

Good point.

This may not be a testable hypothesis, however, I would dispute the "logical necessity" of some sort of "super observer" as postulated in the video.

We may be our own super observer (again backloading history with reverse causality)

This makes sense.

That the wavelengths exists in the absence of an observer is proof that quantum waveforms exist independent of our observation.

Not really. We can never know what may "exist" in the absence of an observer.

But objects and ideas do not exist independent of our observation.

Objects do thoughts do not. Macro objects may be built on quantum rules at the quantum level but they do behave differently. In absence of evidence that particles collapse back into waveforms when unobserved I remain skeptical that objects do not exist when unobserved.

In the absence of evidence of unobservable "existence" your hands would seem to be tied with some very strong epistemological rope.

Unobserved objects are in a superstate (waveform). That was settled by Schrodinger.

The quantum eraser experiments are being scaled up to molecules from mere photons. They hope to be able to conduct the same tests with something like a bacteria. The scientists have speculated that the results would hold true, even if it was conducted with a bowling ball, a human being, or the planet earth.

And we can't say anything about what the "waveform" might be when we don't detect or observe them at all. I mean, we call them "waveforms" when we observe them indirectly, but when we don't detect them at all, who the heck knows what they might be.

So the correct answer is we don't know. I'm comfortable with this answer. It is however still worthwhile to pursue the truth of the matter.

Please explain what you mean by "truth".

What is unobservable and unknowable is by definition, beyond our epistemological limits.

But even if that unobserved unknowable state is beyond our ability to quantify it is still a part of objective reality.

The term "reality" is defined by what is observable. What is unobservable is not within the scope of what we can safely refer to as "reality".

This is called an epistemological limit.

Conclusion: There is an objective reality even if the simple act of observing said reality changes it's nature.

I agree with Kant on this. "Objective" reality looks different to each person, which is the very definition of "subjective".

Our subjective reality is not the same as objective reality. We can deduced facts about objective reality but we can never experience it directly.

Kant postulates that even though we can speculate that noumena "exists" (as some sort of logical necessity) we can never know anything about it, either directly or indirectly.

In fact that simply becomes an observable part of objective reality.

The whole conceptual appeal of "objective reality" (to most people) is that it is supposedly unchanging and indisputable.

I am not made uncomfortable by the idea of a fluid reality.

Perhaps we are approaching common ground.

Perhaps but first you'll have to stop viewing time as a bullet train that only goes in one direction.

Try this video about time -

http://www.youtube.com...

Kant's noumea (objective reality) is basically unknowable and unobservable.
Outplayz
Posts: 3,287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2017 7:38:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?

In our world, the best way is through the scientific method, so far. If something is repeatable and predictable, it will likely be an objective truth.

When it comes to our subjective truths, the best we can do is follow the above method, or elements of it. For instance, i have a spiritual belief. However, i don't take it on faith alone. There are observable elements to it, there are predictable elements to it, but all in all, not to the point for it to be considered an objective truth. I can only keep fine tuning the belief to be as accurate as possible following the rules above. But, always at some point, since it is a subjective truth, it will remain unproven since i can't get all of the elements together. Also, big thing with spiritual matters is that it isn't repeatable, which is an important element in ascertaining if the truth you have is right.

Then there are subjective truths one takes on faith. However, i imagine whatever that faith is the person still see's some kind of elements of observation, repeat, etc.. in it. They see something consistent that brings them to that belief... even if it is something as simple as i see good and evil, therefore, x religion is true bc it talks about it. But, this is why i don't like faith based truths, it's too small minded, simple and willfully ignorant.

Big thing however, if my specific belief is right... there isn't any absolute truths. Only truths that this reality has, but these laws may not be universal. There is an element of multiverses in my belief... same speculations that scientists make on it. There can be a universe where all the laws are opposite to ours... this means our laws aren't absolute. However, we can always find out objective truths here... unless another element, we find out in a thousand years we can reprogram our truths here. We can reprogram gravity to work opposite... that may be possible too.
sadolite
Posts: 10,021
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2017 9:49:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/14/2017 5:10:20 AM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/13/2017 10:54:44 PM, sadolite wrote:
How do we ascertain the truth? One usually already knows the truth, but verifying it involves asking direct questions and getting direct answers. If you don't get direct answers then you know the truth to your question.

A man who assumes he already knows the truth is often wrong. Even Einstein made presumptions that were proved wrong. Even the most direct questions rarely have answers that are straightforward or easy. When someone tells you that something is easy or to good to be true or exactly what you presuppose be suspicious of him. Also anyone that doesn't want you to think, that never challenges you ideas or that praises you when you are wrong is not your friend.

Science isn't what I was referring to. Reading people is what I was referring to.
Beware of the people who are in your circle but are not in your corner.

And with the stroke of a pen people 18 to 21 who own a gun became criminals and public enemy #1 having committed no crime and having said nothing. Just like the Jews in Germany during WW2. Must be a weird feeling.

When I hear people crying and whining about their first world problems I think about the universe with everything in it and people in wheelchairs and all of their problems go away.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2017 8:54:17 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/12/2017 2:27:43 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
There are two realities.
Objective reality, that is to say truth that is true regardless of wether we are aware of it or not.
Subjective reality, that is the approximation of reality that we actually experience within our own minds based on our flawed and limited senses.
The chances of ever encompassing objective reality within our subjective reality seems so improbable as to be impossible.
Certainly the search for truth is important none the less, but how do we best reach any objective truths?
Perhaps just as important how can we discern when our subjective reality is false?

I'm a bit wary of calling the approximation to reality we carry around in our heads a different sort of reality - as the OP implies, there is but one reality (ie 'objective reality')and we perceive approximations to 'reality'. We are not conscious of 'subjective reality' - we are conscious of real perceptions.

The OP asks: "How do we best reach any objective truths?" and asserts it is impossible. I feel that is a pessimistic view because I'll concede there must be a gap between our preception of reality and reality per se, that gap can be continually narrowed and made negligibly small.

But to do that we have to make some assumptions. I think a very important assumption is that reality is self-consistent. That is often how we come to realise our knowledge - or perception/approximation - of reality is seriously wrong; something appears inconsistent. Science is all about showing that everything is connected in vast web of mutual support with no actual paradoxes. Science is strong because its like a bridge made of interlocking girders. Science is a collection of unconnected facts but a web of inter-depedencies and our undertanding of reality increases - the gap between reality and perception narrows - as more and more points are drawn into the grand scheme.

How can we tell when our perception (what the OP calls 'subective reality') is wrong? The clearest sign is that it is impossible to link something into the big picture. Something like ESP can't be added to the big picture we have so far without completely dismantling it - ie throwing away all the millions of inter-connections that work and serve us well when there is no need because ESP is not proven to exist. Either ESP is wrong or everything else is, and its no contest.

But sometimes a radical revision is required - QM and GR requied a great deal of revision of our understanding of reality, a revision that is still ongoing.

I agree with the OP. We are conscious of subjective reality. We can then comprehend objective reality through understanding how the perception occurs.

Take, for example, the delayed perception problem.

Imagine you're watching a beautiful sunset and suddenly it strikes you that the light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach you. What you see, is a delayed representation of objective reality. The actual sun set 8 minutes ago. (Actually, due to lensing by the Earths atmosphere, we continue to see the sun after it has sunk below the objective horizon. So it's actually pretty close to objective sunset). The point is, we can comprehend where the actual sun is, but we can never see it there.

Because of delays in the processing of visual information, we always perceive a delayed representation of reality. That gap between perception and comprehension will never be closed. It's only through comprehension that we get closer to conceiving objective reality. We can never and will never see actual reality.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,516
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2017 9:00:51 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/13/2017 6:15:08 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 12/12/2017 7:17:17 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:
At 12/12/2017 4:45:09 PM, 3RU7AL wrote:
At 12/11/2017 11:04:43 PM, SecularMerlin wrote:



And interesting video but it confuses quantum realism with philosophical realism. The "observer" in the two slits experiment was an apparatus. The observer in question was not a conscious observer.

The presence of the detector makes no difference if there is no data stream recorded for a conscious mind to observe.

Conclusion: an outside "consciousness" is neither necessary nor implied.

We are probably (mostly) self-observing.

That the wavelengths exists in the absence of an observer is proof that quantum waveforms exist independent of our observation.

But objects and ideas do not exist independent of our observation.

And we can't say anything about what the "waveform" might be when we don't detect or observe them at all. I mean, we call them "waveforms" when we observe them indirectly, but when we don't detect them at all, who the heck knows what they might be.

Conclusion: There is an objective reality even if the simple act of observing said reality changes it's nature.

I agree with Kant on this. "Objective" reality looks different to each person, which is the very definition of "subjective".

In fact that simply becomes an observable part of objective reality.

The whole conceptual appeal of "objective reality" (to most people) is that it is supposedly unchanging and indisputable.

Kant's noumea (objective reality) is basically unknowable and unobservable.

I believe that is the flaw in Kant's argument. The nouminal world is unobservable, but in my opinion, it is knowable. It's knowledge which brings us closer to objective reality.
keithprosser
Posts: 6,107
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/15/2017 9:02:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 12/15/2017 8:54:17 AM, Furyan5 wrote:

I agree with the OP. We are conscious of subjective reality. We can then comprehend objective reality through understanding how the perception occurs.

Take, for example, the delayed perception problem.

Imagine you're watching a beautiful sunset and suddenly it strikes you that the light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach you. What you see, is a delayed representation of objective reality. The actual sun set 8 minutes ago. (Actually, due to lensing by the Earths atmosphere, we continue to see the sun after it has sunk below the objective horizon. So it's actually pretty close to objective sunset). The point is, we can comprehend where the actual sun is, but we can never see it there.

Because of delays in the processing of visual information, we always perceive a delayed representation of reality. c It's only through comprehension that we get closer to conceiving objective reality. We can never and will never see actual reality.

I'd query "That gap between perception and comprehension will never be closed." I wonder if you used the wrong word somewhere in there. I'd say there is necessarily a gap between what we perceive and reality but we can bridge that gap (if not close it) using reason. At least we hope so... that is what science is for.