Volker.Doormann

No. For those, who are able to recognize truth and are free from external shown proves, there do not exist assertions attached to persons no more. It is possible to distinguish a recognized truth from an personal assertion as one can distinguish a recognition of a truth in math from a personal asserted claim that yellow spaceships exist. The first is a receiving process of the existing real consciousness; the latter is an active process of a busy brain only. You do not distinguish this, but do claim for wrong, that it is a personal assertion. Because of this mistaken thinking - with some lack in recognition - your logic is of no worth.

Volker

John Page

All roads lead to where we stand, as Don McLean sang.
But to be objective about any of the above systems and thereby independently corroborate them, you need to remove yourself and take the view from System Z und so weiter.
Maybe Gillian and Vicki are in Vancouver and you are in Montreal.
Irrespective of the coin system, you are pointing in the direction of a language statement "It is raining" having meaning which is verfiable against a set of physically measurable criteria.
Joking apart, however, if your truth is only for your location (i.e. bounded within a domain) then it is not true for Vancouver. What I'm trying to illustrate is that a) whether you consider something true is a function of a) The System S which is sophie's truth-telling and b) the information being received by System S.
My only objection here is to your use of the expression "the truth" indication the presumption of a universal. Did you mean "the truth for the system under consideration"?

I'm not discussing corroborative truth, except that you might consider two individuals/truth-tellers as System S and System G as a single system, its components collaborating to arrive at a mutually agreed and corroborated truth.

Cheers, John

John Page

Well, seems you just contradicted yourself again - you're claiming "No one can show truth"
I do distinguish so - why do you not accept that truth is only "true" for the system concerned. You seem to be making a claim for absolute certainty of truth, am I correct?

Cheers, John

sophie

John you concluded that to be objective about any of the above systems and thereby independently corroborate them, you need to remove yourself and take the view from System Z. To this I agree, and I am all for System Z to be replaced by reason. As I claimed earlier the qualification of objective truth through extrinsic and intrinsic means seems only available through reason.


I thought you made a typo in this paragraph, so can you re-phrase it please : What I'm trying to illustrate is that a) whether you consider something true is a function of a) The System S which is sophie's truth-telling and b) the information being received by System S.


I meant the truth as derived by the system. For me philosophically, I find it increasingly difficult to seperate the system from its inputs when we speak philosophically about truth.

...as a single system, its components collaborating to arrive at a mutually agreed and corroborated truth. In my view, this is simply another process of deriving truth, which again the inputs and the form of the system cannot be seperated. As an example, I asked Gillian and Vicki, who ate the cookies, and why was the cookie jar on its side, and they both blamed the cookie monstrosity, then they said, they agreed it was the cookie monster. I would reply - Ah huh. (I would have a good clue who the cookie monsters really were).

Volker.Doormann

You have subtitled this your post subject: 'Volker's Truth' and would make the world believe, that you do distinguish. You try again to process attaching claims to a person, ignorant to acknowledge some words other as personal claims. No Sir. EOD.

John Page

...but reason tells us we can never get completely "outside" the system.
Oops! Whether you consider seomething true or not is a function of a) the System S which is sophie's truth-telling and b) the information being received by System S.
True for sophie.

Cheers, John

John Page

You are the one making the claims, aren't you? It is people who think truths so its hardly possible to discuss truth without reference instances of people.

Anyway, as to the topic, I'm still confused by your personal assertion that "For those, who are able to recognize truth and are free from external shown proves, there do not exist assertions attached to persons no more."

In this context, how do we "recognize truth"?

Cheers, John

sophie

John, to support my claim that truth is dependent on the delivery system, I make the following points.

(1) Through reason, I am unable to deny extrinsic truth exists. In other words I am appealing to common sense, which indicates the truth of existing reality.

(2) Through reason, I realise it is difficult to apprehend extrinsic truth. Any attempt to obtain these truths must be accomplished through a system, or through a multitude of systems.

(3) Either the truth is brought to me, or I shall have to seek the truth.

(4) Any system which proposes to deliver the truth must necessarily be true itself.

(5) The possibility exists that a wrong choice of truth delivery is choosen, a mismatch between the informational content of the event or experience and the system used to derive the truth.

(6) All truth is encoded as information.

(7) The system which delivers the truth does so by processing the information and derives as its conclusion what the system believes is correspondent to reality based on the system itself and the information recieved.

(8) The truth exists even though we may have no system to exploit it.

(9) Systems of truth exist even if there is no information for them to work on.

(10) True systems of truth delivery should be universally true.

sophie

John, I agree we can never get completely outside the system, and for this reason, our objectivity is hampered and most often veiled. For those of us who live less reasonable lives, we are unable to be truthfully objective (to the scope to which we can be objective).

I also agree on the subjectivity of truth - my truth is my truth, John has his truth, ect, ect.. However if I can encode an objective process subjectively, I can subjectively derive an objective truth, by using this almost perfectly encoded truth-telling system. If Gillian said at 2 pm yesterday she was sitting in front of the house in the shade, and I can decode the angle the sun was making at that time knowing the sky was clear, I can objectively determine the truth of her statement concerning the shade she was under.


As a bypass, I think you and Volker are talking past each other. I am not sure if Volker understands your solipsist position of truth.

John Page

Why only Almost Perfect? How could you tell? Comparing it to perfectly encoded truth-telling system?

Me? My shot is that there is a relationship between the reliability of a truth and the extent to which it has been tested. Outside the scope of that testing we are into the realm of conjecture by imagination.

Cheers, John