JusticeMachine

Thank you Calvan. That is the question people should ask, or rather what is absolutly true.

But to ask the question means that there is absolute truth and now we can seek it out. We will never find truth if we come from the premise that is doesn't exist.

I, however didn't answer your question did I?

We have to start small I guess. Can we agree that there are basic mathmatical truths?

This * added to this * equals this **?

The Dionysian

"So is that your opinion or is that an absolute truth.

Ooooh wait.....is it an absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, but if that is absolutly true that in isn't.

Ow!!!! my brain hurts.

I can however say that it is absolutly true that there is absolute truth.........there that makes so much more sense now doesn't it."


Oh undoubtedly it's my point of view that there are only different points of view.

Oxymoron

Let me offer my 0.02 GBP.

For each individual, the world is modelled inside their head. Objective reality is 'out there', but not directly accesible because of the physical limitations of human biology and the constraints of our mental mechanisms.

Everything in the world that we perceive is part of our model. Our cognitive systems are continually interpreting input data using the model, and updating it with the results. The entire process of cognition is attempting to create rules that are mappings between our mental model of how the world is and the data streaming in via our senses.

The only valid question we can ask about any particular aspect of our model of the world is "How well does it work? Does it correspond to what's out there?" It's what our cognitive systems are doing (or trying to do) all the time. It's what science is all about, too: testability and falsifiablity. An aspect of our internal model either works (maps to reality) or it doesn't.

Our internal model is highly non-linear: we interpret input data in terms of it, and update the model (or don't) with the results. Our model is therefore highly influenced by the things we experience and determines how we will interpret things in the future. So in a sense, everything is subjective. However, because we're sharing the same reality, things that are testifiable and falsifiable must be (the only things) that can be common between us.

Conclusion: no such thing as objectivity, the best we can do is share things that are testable and falsifiable.

JusticeMachine

That type of thinking can only lead to anarchy. For if all is subjective and all people beliefs are equal, then no human or society has the right to make laws that supercede your right to live by your own beliefs, regardless if they are destructive to other people or not. What a lovely world that would be.

The Dionysian

"What a lovely world that would be."

Hey, I never claimed to hold beliefs that would make the world a lovely place.

Calvan

JusticeMachine, thank you for your response.

I do not see as a valid observation that my request to you for an example of absolute truth is an admission that there is absolute truth.

Nor do I perceive my request of you for information from about absolute truth that you imply you possess as validation of the existence of absolute truth. If I had originated the term "absolute truth", then I would assert that I perceive there to be an absolute truth. But given that it is your term, I am coming from no premise. I only respectfully ask for information which you appear to possess that it exists.

I assume that this equation is valid.

I am wondering what is the absolute truth that you consider to be important enough to warrant so much psychic energy. Surely it is not that 1 + 1 = 2.

But I apologize if I am being pushy. I am content to start at the beginning of your explanation. Please continue to pursue the answer to my question "what is absolute truth?" And again, if and when you identify the absolute truth, I would appreciate an example of the entity in order than I might more fully understand your answer.

Calvan

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Calvan ]</p>

JusticeMachine

Well, as long as we know where we stand.

You wouldn't be a Sex Pistols fan would you?

Calvan

JusticeMachine,

I am looking forward to your response to Oxymoron's posting as well as mine. Thank you in advance.

Calvan

Chip

Heart felt beliefs become enforced by those who would have us believe they are objective facts. That is the danger of denying the collaborative nature of science, the sharing of perspectives to come to more working subjectively verifiable concepts.

Sharing is antithetical to many as we are taught to grab as much as possible without consideration of other people's needs. I contend that we have anarchy right now, no global governing or guidance system, just factions forcefully putting forth their beliefs as objective. Within such a global "gang-warfare" state of existence, propaganda is rife. Believe that one perspective is truth while another is not instead of there being a neccessity to communicate and work out our differing opinions and anarchy becomes the rule rather than the exception.

Tell me of the proof that I can see, JusticeMachine, that you are sharing something here that is other than your or anyone's opinion. If you claim that you know reality and that others don't then I'll just have to stop reading your posts also as I have with Evangelion. From your alias as well as your posts I begin to perceive that you have a heartfelt desire to believe that you can be omniscient enough to know what is true despite any one's opinion to the contrary. So it goes.

Regards, Chip

Chip

BTW, 1+1 rarely equals two except within pure mathematics. Try adding one horse and one apple or one half critical mass of plutonium to another.

IMHO, lol

Regards, Chip

Oh, one multiplication sign (*) added to another to result in the exponent sign (**) as used in many programming languages shows that context needs to be shared to come to a working consensus of understanding.

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]</p>