balisongsong

From what basis do some of you assert that empirical truth is the only truth,and hence that reality ends at the point where our experience of reality comes to an end?,experience in the sense of that which can be empirically verified.
Or to put it another way,why,or upon what ground do many of you maintaing that the empirical verification is the only criteria of truth?

tronvillain

Well, what else is there? Experience appears to be the only source of information about reality. This does not mean that experience defines the boundaries of reality, but it does mean that experience defines the boundaries of our knowledge of reality. If something exists that we cannot experience directly or indirectly, then we can have no evidence of its existence, and hence no reason to believe that it exists.

Secular Pinoy

Kumusta, kababayan!

I hope you can stay and add to our discussions here. Truth is an ideal, something we can hardly achieve. At best we can only reach an approximation of it. Empiricism is based on induction, and induction does not lead to absolute certainty, yet it is the only method we have for knowing about the world outside our minds.

You seem to have a weird idea of what the people here believe in, a straw-man or naive interpretation perhaps. While it can apply to some posters, most infidels here do not declare absolute certainty nor truth, nor do they believe that empirical truth is the only truth there is. We just think that most other claims must be grounded upon it, or validated by it.

Jonesy

excellent point. The grounds for that are 'the moajority's grounds'. trust me, our intellect and conclusions about reality are limited by our imagination. If we can imagine and understand things that 99 % of others cannot - then you are not crazy, just smarter in that respect.

If we cannot, for example, choose ourselves what dreams we want to dream every night - doesn't mean we won't be able to do this in the future. Infact, the probability of people being able to do this in the future is "1". A certainty. Also, there is no such things as magic. Only our lack of knowledge. Is is as simple as that. And those who say that, as you said 'empirical verification is the only criteria of truth' - they create these barriers. They don't understand the concept of 'intellectual truth'. The kind of truth you don't need 'physical proof' for. It's 'logical ' truth that in many cases we cannot YET prove 'physically'. But one day everything will be ALSO proven physically. For example, one day, we will find out exactly why we have 'happy' feelings and how we can control ourselves how to 'switch' off any 'unhappiness' and remain happy for as long as we wish. This is just one example. There are many more.

The only truth there is is what YOU can udnerstand. Because what YOU can udnerstand will almost always be in conflict with what others can understand. And as such, having 'consensus' on things, such as 'theories' of 'having to have to prove everything empirically' - just limits your own progress. You need to let go from the common 'flock' mentality and explore ALL things that you can imagine. Because whatever you can imagine - one day will be 'child's play'. For example, invisibility. One day you can choose to become invosible in the same way you can choose to suddenly 'raise your hand into the air'. When raising your hand into the air - you FIRST use your mind - and the physical action FOLLOWS what your intellect chose to do. So it's all about choises.

You can choose to be ignorant and ridicule things, or you can choose to open your mind and learn while not ridiculing anything.

Matt Arnold

Balisong, when you use the word truth in your question do you mean knowledge inside my mind, or do you mean reality outside my mind? You seem to have them confused. Knowledge and reality are two different things, and ought not to be summed up in the word truth. Knowledge is like a map that I am drawing, reality is the terrain that that map is meant to represent. The real terrain is out there whether we have seen it or not, but we should not "draw" anything on the mental "map" until we have been there.

I do not believe that reality ends at the point where our experience comes to an end, but knowledge does come to an end at that point. I believe that our first-hand experiences are the most reliable criteria for knowledge. You should not believe in a thing until you have an experience which needs it for an explanation. Otherwise you would have to believe in almost anything, merely because it is possible.

Wyz_sub10

I have to be honest here. I have a hard time trying to find a point in all of this.

Smarter in what respect, exactly? Is imagining the same as understanding? And what does this have to do with empiricism?

Again, what does this have to do with empirical verification? Can we not empirically verify that we *cannot* choose dreams? And if the time comes where we can, will we not be able to empirically verify this, as well?

Yes, and if that time comes we will be able to validate that empirically. If emprical validation means nothing to you, then how do you know people can't do that already? Maybe everyone can do it except you? I'm guessing you don't think this is the case. Why not?

You seem to be suggesting that every concept or idea is "real", even though, you say, they may not be empirically validated. But someday, all these things *will be* empirically validated.

Essentially, you're saying that we'll continue to put ideas into action to create new things. I doubt you'll get much debate on that from anyone.

But the idea of telekinesis is not the same as telekinesis. The former exists today and can be empirically proven (i.e. "let me tell you about an idea called telekinesis"). The latter may or may not be discovered, but when it does it, too, will be empirically verified.

You have not demonstrated that any kind of verification or litmus test for "truth" exists beyond what we can observe.

K

balisongsong:

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but I'll hazard a guess. Do you believe that logic and reason are not grounded in empiricism? There have been several others here who have entered philosphy discussions with the same assumption. If this is the case, it is an incorrect assumption. You could go over to philosphy to look at some of the arguments.

abe smith

My Impression Izz that B.S.S. is about to unfurl & wave a strongly-worded assertion FOR "Revelation/Revealed Real-itching" wh/ of course is one of the major forms of urging belief in what humans and their sensory systems are unable to demonstrate evidence for. And So? Bali-Nowhere? Let's hear about "eye hath not seen nor blah blah blah the " stuff etcetera.

SteveD

Hey Matt Arnold,
I really like your map analogy.

Thanks for that.

Steve