phaedrus

John

Perhaps you are ready for the entree this time? Link to truth definition and the diagram here.

Lets get back to What is true and what we "think" is true is a different? When we are saying truth is a result of subjective/inter-subjective, what we "think" is true, is what we accept as the "truth". In light of that "belief" plays a very central role in the process for truth. You havent finished that yet.

Anyhow, i didnt like the starters last time around and it still doesnt answer anything. ....What is "logical " truth and what is "truth"? Is there a difference?

And your diagram doesnt matter until you are able to bring the feedback loop as well as "consciousness" or "sub-consciousness"

I hope you will see that the phenomenology of truth that I propose is based on a cognitive model that uses the degree of correspondence between entities (arrived at through a process of comparison of entities) to derive a representation of the truth. Truth is thus a fabricated entity that exists only in minds.

And that is entirely unique and different from all existing thoughts/views on this particular issue?

Belief is to do with truth about truth. I don't necessarily disagree with you but it is the thought process that first entails truth and, as I suggested before, when we try and reconcile various truths we see it is true that some (previously regarded truths) are false. Hence we apprehend belief.

Nope, once you say "reconcile various truths we see it is true that some (previously regarded truths) are false" is an illogical statement. Once you qualifed something as a "truth", how can it be false. Maybe you should use "postulations" or "hypothesis" or "information" or "inputs". We will accept something as "truth " after we interpret "it" based on our "web-of-beliefs"

Please see above.

Nothing above

No, it is not "out there", the truth is a mental entity determined by the mind. So, it is "in here" waiting to be discovered.

Errr...its "in here" waiting to be discovered???????? going by your logic all the truths in the world are inside our head, we just discover them as we grow up.

Why can't the truth be just "knowing something"?

Umm...because we can "know" lots of things ...but we accept "certain" things as truths

Again, please see the links earlier in this post for a process description. The frame of reference is (patterns within) sense data.

How can "frame of reference" be in the sense data? It has to be inside our head .....basically "web-of-beliefs"/knowledge base. Is your sense data something like this?

Maybe a misunderstanding here - the observer is the person trying to figure out what is going on (e.g. you) - not the subject.

Umm...lets see...

you said => state is a "Snapshot of activity in a specific brain area",

then i asked => But it is a snapshot from whose perspective?

you responded => From the prespective of an observer.

so i asked => But this is the mind we are talking about... and you defiend the state as "Snapshot of activity in a specific brain area", where does the observer come into the picture here?

So I dont know what you are trying to do by telling who an observer is

Its an input to our thought process in general - I'm not differentiating between conscious/unconscious at this point. How do we know we are thinking? I gave one example - how about our memory of how good our memory is as another. (Although we're not aware of all memory deterioration, counter example Alzheimers.)

You are not being clear....

i asked => Umm...you will have to elaborate on what could be internal sensory input

you said => The kind of input by which you know you are thinking, for example.

so i asked => Umm....how is that an input? How does anyone know that they are thinking??? That is something that happens subconsciously.....expand...

What is the difference between thinking and the thought process? What exactly are the different types of "internal sensory input(s)"

I thought I'd said it. For example, minds can dam rivers, make telephones, compose music. These are all creative acts foreign to, say, reality viewed solely through Newtonian physics.

Err and passive systems dont do all these? This is what a human mind does....by terming it "active systems" doesnt make it a new discovery

define thought as a word desribing all mental activity, so "meaning beneath the level of thought" is nonsensical to me.

Read subconscious and then maybe you will be able to understand. A "thought" cant be all mental activity.....the mind does lots of things...including keeping us alive and kicking

Anyhows coming back to ponty...you might have to read up on "affective meaning" or like i said in the old thread ...He is talking about the sub-conscious or non-verbal signs.....which play an important role in communication...read these lines in the quote "which is contained in the words just insofar as they are patterned sounds, as just the sounds which this particular historical language uniquely uses, and which are much more like a melody--a "singing of the world"--than fully translatable, conceptual thought" Every language as this certain nuances or accent or sound right?

Steady on - how do we first know that human thought is a reliable medium etc.? Back to Nagel Land.....

Because we are human beings and our thoughts or what we have?????? And in any case, a careful reading of the quote again would reveal to you that.....it says...The intellectual development of mankind can proceed, as it is doing, but on a philosophically more secure basis and in the knowledge that language, as a flexible instrument designed to match the open-endedness of human experience (perception and action), can be a reliable medium for exploring, recording and developing man's knowledge of the external world and of his own nature (emphasis mine)

jp

John Page

Hi Norm!
Sorry, still doesn't make sense to me. If thought is brain activity and cognition is a type of thought that is a type of brain activity, how can cognition preceed thought?
Whoa!! "Reality" and "existence" are abstract concepts that require a considerable degree of coherent thought even to conceptualize, let alone understand and prove! It is therefore impossible that "reality exists" could ever be a first coherent thought.
Yes, cognition and comparison against the results of prior cognitive events.
Why should I refute it? If the word reality refers to the concept of all, everything, the universe, such that every entity must be contained within reality, then thoughts must be part of reality.
Good question. Some hereabouts think of reality as the material universe and that thoughts do not reside there. Does it matter which way you conceive of reality as long as its consistent with the facts - aren't they just Points Of View?

Cheers, John

John Page

Surely a logical truth is a truth determined by the system of logic employed by "truth" we mean truths that are generally accepted. Yes, they may be different because truth is relative to the system of its determination.
So you believe, but, as I explained before, it must have been some kind truth for you to believe it. You might think of a belief as a contingent truth but then all truths are contingent.
Have you looked at the results of split-brain experiments? The unconscious mind seems perfectly well able to comprehend and respond to the outside world.

I think it is trivial just to put some form of memory mechanism into the diagram - its focus is the process of abstraction and truth manufacture, not how we instantiate mental objects through exposure to repeated sensory patterns.

IMO Consciousness is not a pre-requisite for a mind to form a truth. What makes you think so (or is there another reason that you think the diagram "doesn't matter"?
Excuse me? Did I make that claim?
Truths are ephemeral and mind-based, not universals. Did the truth about the earth going round the sun change change with Gallileo? Yes, it sure did.

Truths are relative and therefore change as one changes one's point of view. I think I understand your reference to belief-systems "web-of-beliefs" but believe you are mistaken. I could just as easily say that your web-of-truths is based on your beliefs but this is irrelevant - beliefs are truths in some form.
Its there, and quite obvious, you just didn't look for it properly.
"our head"? Collectively?

Seriously, I have never said or implied such a thing about "all truths". I thought you would understand the concept of the mind/brain as a constantly developing and changing entity whose innermost activity is hidden from our conscious awareness. Perhaps I can convey to you the idea of the mind/brain that is constantly analyzing and modifying its view of the world by absorbing and reconciling new sensory input. In this way, your world and the truths that go with it are already formed so when the conscious mind kicks in those truths are predetermined and waiting for discovery and testing.
Tell me about this process of acceptance that makes knowledge into truth.
A set of sense data is a frame of reference. It is rendered "sensible" by comparison with other sense data.
*sigh* You are an observer. I am trying to convey to you that by brain state.....
None (thinking is a process termed "thought process") and I don't know exactly the different types of internal sensory input(s). However, from the examples provided and from your own questions do you not accept that these must exist? You keep asking about feedback loops, for example, which are a kind of internal sensory input.
didn't claim it was.
Well you didn't say "subconscious".
I don't see any justification for distinguishing the (subconscious) neuronal activity required for heart operation from other neuronal activity. Perhaps you could help me out here, how would you define mental activity that is not thought?
Yes, meaning can be conveyed by body language, guttural grunts and ululations providing the transmitter and receiver use the same context in which the communication has meaning. What's your point?
Sure, but we have our limitations as humans (and by attempting to understand them hope we can overcome them). I did read the quote but failed to see the justification for the author's claim that language had been designed to match the open-endedness of human experience.

Cheers, john

Normal

Salutations John,

Thought and sensation are both types of brain activity, but they could hardly be considered the same. Thought is deduction from sensation. The sensation was first, and from the sensation came thought. The deduction itself is impossible without presupposing reality to exist.

My stance is thought is impossible without that presupposition. You might not be aware you are making that presupposition, or the implications of such a thing, but indeed the abstract concepts can be logically deduced afterwards as the basis for thought.

And the comparison came through the patterns that emerged from the sensations. From these patterns we initally get a sense of what is "real", and thus, our presupposition of reality emerges as our first true thought seperate from sensation.

So you agree thoughts must be dependant on reality existing and therefore, if you think, reality must exist?

Thoughts reside there as neuron activity in our brain, why not? Thoughts themselves are dependant on reality, IOW: ALL points of view presuppose a reality existing.

Ciao

John Page

Hi Norm!
No problem - seems we're working to a different definition of cognition, though. I take cognition as the thought processes involved with interpreting or recognizing a situation etc. as opposed to just our cognitive functions. (Not that I get hung up on definitions but from websters "the act or process of knowing including both awareness and judgment". I agree sensation precedes thought - necessarily because the lowest level of thought is about the sensation.
I still maintain that presupposition must at least be a kind of thought process, albeit unconscious thought (which is why it appears to the conscious mind as presupposition. (I don't like the term, how can you suppose something before you've supposed it!)
:notworthy
It seems reasonable to me, I just pointed out that there are a) other ways of approaching this issue - perhaps a form of idealism, and b) I think we end up with inter-dependent definitions rather than anything radically new about thought or reality.
With reality defined as the absence of nothing, hard to disagree!

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

Surely a logical truth is a truth determined by the system of logic employed by "truth" we mean truths that are generally accepted. Yes, they may be different because truth is relative to the system of its determination.

But does the logical truth have any advantage over the 'normal' truth? If it doesnt, we might as well use "truth" and not add logical to it

So you believe, but, as I explained before, it must have been some kind truth for you to believe it. .

Err....how can it be "some kind of truth" if you already havent qualified it as 'truth'. Once you call it "truth", you 'believe' it to be true.

You might think of a belief as a contingent truth but then all truths are contingent

There is nothing to believe here......without belief there is not truth. There are facts and theories, but what we hold to be "true" depends on our beliefs

Have you looked at the results of split-brain experiments? The unconscious mind seems perfectly well able to comprehend and respond to the outside world.

I think it is trivial just to put some form of memory mechanism into the diagram - its focus is the process of abstraction and truth manufacture, not how we instantiate mental objects through exposure to repeated sensory patterns.

IMO Consciousness is not a pre-requisite for a mind to form a truth. What makes you think so (or is there another reason that you think the diagram "doesn't matter"?

As i said, without the feedback loop we are only looking at linear explanation. The very fact that feedback could change the basic axioms itself warrants one.

Err....does the unconscious mind be able to assimilate information and come to conclusions about truth statements?

Excuse me? Did I make that claim?

Nope you didnt...i am merely pointing out the obvious

Truths are ephemeral and mind-based, not universals. Did the truth about the earth going round the sun change change with Gallileo? Yes, it sure did.

Truths are relative and therefore change as one changes one's point of view.

As i said, then start using different words. The statement "reconcile various truths we see it is true that some (previously regarded truths) are false" is illogical.

I think I understand your reference to belief-systems "web-of-beliefs" but believe you are mistaken. I could just as easily say that your web-of-truths is based on your beliefs but this is irrelevant - beliefs are truths in some form.

How am i mistaken? What is web-of-truths? Its nothing but web-of-belief, a framework of reference which is used to analyze, understand and learn

Its there, and quite obvious, you just didn't look for it properly.

Nope

Seriously, I have never said or implied such a thing about "all truths". I thought you would understand the concept of the mind/brain as a constantly developing and changing entity whose innermost activity is hidden from our conscious awareness. Perhaps I can convey to you the idea of the mind/brain that is constantly analyzing and modifying its view of the world by absorbing and reconciling new sensory input. In this way, your world and the truths that go with it are already formed so when the conscious mind kicks in those truths are predetermined and waiting for discovery and testing.

Come on....how does one interpret this statement of yours No, it is not "out there", the truth is a mental entity determined by the mind. So, it is "in here" waiting to be discovered. This statement implies "the truth" is applicable for all......Your explanation holds good for truths that are based on the existing knowledge base.....it doesnt apply to "entirely new truths" which dont exist inside. For example, someone who has lived in a jungle and hasnt interacted the outside world...will learn lots of "new" truths when encountered with all the truths that we take for granted.

Truth is not "in there" or "out there". It is a continous flow and a constant interplay between our web-of-beliefs and the outside world.

Tell me about this process of acceptance that makes knowledge into truth.

In the sense? You accept that "knowing something" is not the same as the truth?

A set of sense data is a frame of reference. It is rendered "sensible" by comparison with other sense data.

ok...thought you were talking about inputs

*sigh* You are an observer. I am trying to convey to you that by brain state.....

He he....i know what i am....but you cant reconcile the snapshot of a "brain area" to an observer...

None (thinking is a process termed "thought process") and I don't know exactly the different types of internal sensory input(s). However, from the examples provided and from your own questions do you not accept that these must exist?

Umm...in a discussion you dont use a phrase and then say that you dont know.....what are these examples you have provided??
You need to expand more

didn't claim it was.

good...that is clarified

Well you didn't say "subconscious".
I don't see any justification for distinguishing the (subconscious) neuronal activity required for heart operation from other neuronal activity. Perhaps you could help me out here, how would you define mental activity that is not thought?

Come on...i offered a quote...which you misunderstood and i clarified...how i can say that before you asked? Mental activity that is not thought => as i said earlier the mind does lots of things...including keeping us alive and kicking

Yes, meaning can be conveyed by body language, guttural grunts and ululations providing the transmitter and receiver use the same context in which the communication has meaning. What's your point?

Err ....again.....that was offered in response to your comments about ponty

Sure, but we have our limitations as humans (and by attempting to understand them hope we can overcome them). I did read the quote but failed to see the justification for the author's claim that language had been designed to match the open-endedness of human experience.

But we cant get out of the human skin or mind or have an archimedian point-of-view (except if you are able to agree to the mystics out-of-body experience).

As indicated above, you misread the quote then and again now....the author merely suggests the role language can play in our lives and our understanding of the world.

jp

Luiseach

Hi Mr. Page!

Yes...agreed. But there is something about intersubjectivity that makes me a bit nervous. I agree that intersubjectivity is part of the truth-building process (in reaction to empirical evidence, of course...facts, observations, and so on), but what I'm trying to articulate is a feeling of unease about who is and isn't involved in official truth-making, and why. Who is included, and who is excluded, and on what grounds? These questions don't need to be answered, because I'm still struggling with the potential answers myself, but they are questions which I often ask myself. Who has the power/right/privilege/integrity to be permitted to be amongst those who get to decide what is and isn't true? Or is the whole process simply the good old dialectic (thesis/antithesis/synthesis...etc.).

Sheesh...is 'truth,' then, just a matter of majority rule?

I agree with what you said somewhere earlier in this discussion, namely that even though truth is 'subjective' (or 'intersubjective'), it must by necessity resemble the facts as closely as possible.

They certainly did believe that, and empirical evidence encouraged them to change this aspect of what is considered 'true.'

I would like to believe that what I consider to be 'true' is based on facts, and that these facts are as objectively observed as possible. I'm concerned, however, with how intersubjectivity (majority rulings on truth) can interact with, and therefore influence, one's construction of truth(s) from raw data. So I guess I would argue that the truth presented to one by one's mind is mediated to some degree by the influence of reigning majority rulings on truth...and of course our senses are by necessity required as conduits for the facts upon which we make truth claims.

I'm thinking that objectivity, as an ideal, is always a goal, a potential, and never an actuality. Facts refine our versions of the truth. Perhaps this is the best we can hope for. What would an objective fact look like, I wonder?

Thanks again for your thoughts on this, Mr. Page!

John Page

Hi jp!
Well, you would need to set an objective and criteria to be able to compare the relative efficacy of different truth systems. This is the pragamatists view, I believe (not that I fully agree with it).
We're going round in circles here - It seems to me that I'm talking about "a belief" as a contingent truth whereas you're talking about "belief" as the act of accepting something as true. Taking the latter meaning of the word, I agree there is a process that can be called belief by which a truth is known.
Yes, it could. A feedback loop would elaborate a mechanism for patterns of sense data to be instantiated as "operational masters" (or axiomatic concepts, as I have idealized them).

Here are two links, one of which proposes a change to how the axioms of logic are expressed (in preparation for a feedback loop that explains how we get from one representational form to another) Link #1 here , the second offering a new axiom in which new objects are instantiated (invented, made up) within the system under consideration, Link #2 here .

I need to complete work on the Comparison/Detection Theory that complements the above, but do you agree with the assertion I make in the first link above that "A cognitive system must rely upon comparison of represented and representational in order to recognize common identity."?
Touche! If the above is illogical we should need systems of truth determination, the truth would be "self-evident". My stance is that a truth is relative to the knower.
No truth is absolute therefore web-of-truths/beliefs are both terms that describe one's framework of reference. Do you agree?
minds!

All I'm doing is asserting a truth that applies to the results of mental operations, i.e. truth is "in here" (one's mind).
....which interplay takes place in your mind therefore your truth is "in there", where there refers to your mind.
Please attempt an answer, I'm trying to understand what you meant by "process of acceptance".

Let's try "A truth developed by the unconscious mind appears as an a priori truth to our faculty of consciousness and, while we can question this knowledge of the truth it remains self-evident so long as the unconscious mind continues to present it." Which we can follow with "Conscious inquiry can force the issue of why something is true. Such an inquiry can be undertaken using one or more methods such as deduction. inference, logical analysis, scientific investogation. It may be, as a result of re-evaluation through conscious inquiry, that something we proviously thought to be true is not so. For example, the concept of refraction shows the stick does not bend as it enters the water."
Perhaps not fully, but doctors can show you snapshots that corroborate with "normal" observations in explaining various brain disorders. Electrical storms and epilepsy is an example.
I said I didn't know them all exactly and have given at least two examples (of what I mean by internal sensory inputs). Anyway, discussion is sterile without conjecture.
Now who's not being exact.
However, I believe the mind has the capacity to adopt and compare different points of view. If we can understand its strengths and weaknesses this opens up the possibilities of a) the mind/brain continuing to evolve a better understanding of reality and b) of developing tools that overcome some of the weaknesses we find in ourselves - e.g. you can think of computers as mental crutches.
OK, I've said I concur with some of it but that I don't like the author's suggestion that language was designed.

Cheers, John

John Page

Lady Lu:
Yes, evolution brought us to the "dialectic age". For Post Modernism read "eclectic age".
No, you do not have to believe the majority.
If one listens only to the majority then that voice will determine the "truth for you". In this manner truth can become merely a fashion. However, reality influences our opinion as to the truth and seems unaffected by democracy.
A completely objective fact would be considered true from all points of view. I conclude that the completely objective fact is, in fact, a fiction.

Cheers, John

Normal

G'Day John,

It seems my earlier statements about cognition were using a definition counter-intuitive to the general meaning; where I used cognitive before, I sometimes meant sensation without thought. For example, your feet right now are feeling some kind of sensation, chances are you arn't thinking about it, but is the sensation any less experienced?

It is a kind of thought process derived from the repeated sensations, it is the exact splitting off from sensation to deductive and inductive logic. You suppose it because you have to in order to accept reality.

Idealism is the intersubjective definition of certain sensation patterns. You can recognize these patterns without giving names to them.

But do you then see how the absence of nothing is the presence of truth?

Ciao