Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sophie · 07-06-2003, 09:59 AM

yguy, you concluded that truth exists without regard to our ability or desire to perceive it.

This I cannot deny, and I cannot deny it through the use of reason. The simple explaination must be that truth had to be there in the first place. If we ever try to get at the truth, it is there waiting to be known, (edit) or some form of the truth is there available to be known.

We usually argue about how the truth can be known.

John Page · 07-06-2003, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sophie
In this context using logic as an example, the framework of logic which delivers truths must be universally true. Meaning logic is the same for me as it is for you. This entails the mechanisms which can process symbolically must be true, meaning the language of logic must be true, and the results of the manipulation of the language of logic must be universal. This means ((A & B) & A) must yield (A & B) for everyone, otherwise some may arrive at A while others deduce B.

Why must logic be the same for me as it is for you? Perhaps we share the same genetic disposition and culture, which means our minds likely work in similar ways. But what of an alien mind that manipulates so-called truth in different ways?

I'd also like to throw in the following conjecture. "If humans do not behave logically, and their behaviour is a result of their mental processes, then their mental processes to not operate in the same manner as systems of formal logic."

Take a look at this thread on dialetheism where on the second page I propose a Law of Non-Identity and a Law of Contradiction.

Cheers, John

John Page · 07-06-2003, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
If mass were an extrinsic property, the mass of an object would change if we adopted a different standard of measure. It doesn't.

I'm confused. Who said mass was extrinsic?

Something can be interpreted relative to something else (extrinsic relativism?) but when the concept is in the mind only (greenness, truth etc.) then it is relative to that mind - intrinsic within that mind if you prefer (but extrinsic to your mind).

Cheers, John

sophie · 07-06-2003, 11:48 AM

John,

don't get carried away. There are a number of steps to comprehend here.

(1) TRUTH - available through ANY truth delivery system.

(2) LOGIC - a particular instance of a truth delivery system.

(3) MORE TRUTH - available through alien truth delivery systems.

What I have been getting at is the truth delivery system must be true in order to deliver truth. As I said earlier flipping a coin to delegate true or false to a situation is a false truth delivery system, because it will guess correctly some times and other times it will be off. It will not be consistent. If it is raining outside at this moment and I flip a coin 2 million times, 1 million times the coin will imply it is not raining outside.

Truth delivery systems cannot guess, they must be consistent in their conclusions.

Aliens who cannot utilise our form of logical interpretation as defined by the early Geeks, cannot know truth through logic. Our system of logic would not be true for them. Perhaps they may have some other truth delivery system which MUST BE TRUE for them.

yguy · 07-06-2003, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
I'm confused. Who said mass was extrinsic?

Neither mass not weight are independent of context They are intrinsic, measurable properties.

You said it is intrinsic, but then said it is independent of context. How can that be?

John Page · 07-06-2003, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
[BYou said it is intrinsic, but then said it is independent of context. How can that be? [/B]

To discover intrinsic properties, you have to compare it to something, the something then becomes the context.

This goes back to the difficulty of directly knowing the thing-in-itself - but we can still look at our source of knowledge.

Cheers, John

John Page · 07-06-2003, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sophie
To form judgements on extrinsic truths, I must have intrinsic truths because the final analysis is intrinsic to me. Surprisingly that extrinsic truth is found intrinsically, as if by some form of sorcery. (Perhaps I am abusing the extrinsic � intrinsic language conotations).

sophie:

You say "Surprisingly that extrinsic truth is found intrinsically..." That's because your truth is intrinsic to you, it never was intrinsic to anything else (extrinsic to you).

Cheers, John

John Page · 07-06-2003, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sophie
(1) TRUTH - available through ANY truth delivery system.
.
.
.

Perhaps they may have some other truth delivery system which MUST BE TRUE for them.

Yes.
System S's truths are true w.r.t. System S.
System J's truth's are true w.r.t. System J.

System S arrives at truth "A" and System J arrives at truth "B". Through communication the two systems exchange instances of their truths and can agree that truth A and truth B are the same. This shows how our intrinsic truths can be inter-subjectively shared.

Make sense?

Cheers, John

yguy · 07-06-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
To discover intrinsic properties, you have to compare it to something, the something then becomes the context.

What does discovery have to do with it? Did objects not have mass before the concept was developed? They did not, of course, have the concept of mass associated with them, but objects still behaved in a manner dictated by the fact that they possessed the attribute we now call mass.

By your reasoning, it appears that what I would call objective truth is somehow dependent on our perception of it. Have I got that right?

John Page · 07-06-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
What does discovery have to do with it? Did objects not have mass before the concept was developed?

So we suppose, but it does not seem that objects had labels on them saying the mass of this object x kg when compared to a reference standard piece of French metalurgy.

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
They did not, of course, have the concept of mass associated with them, but objects still behaved in a manner dictated by the fact that they possessed the attribute we now call mass.

Agreed, this is a necessary "reliable supposition" in order to propose intrinsicness.

Quote:

Originally posted by yguy
By your reasoning, it appears that what I would call objective truth is somehow dependent on our perception of it. Have I got that right?

Tricky because truth is a result of perception/cognition!
Your truth is intrinsic to you, your truth is extrinsic to me.

Cheers, John

07-06-2003, 11:48 AM	#74
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	getting carried away BY ALIENS John, don't get carried away. There are a number of steps to comprehend here. (1) TRUTH - available through ANY truth delivery system. (2) LOGIC - a particular instance of a truth delivery system. (3) MORE TRUTH - available through alien truth delivery systems. What I have been getting at is the truth delivery system must be true in order to deliver truth. As I said earlier flipping a coin to delegate true or false to a situation is a false truth delivery system, because it will guess correctly some times and other times it will be off. It will not be consistent. If it is raining outside at this moment and I flip a coin 2 million times, 1 million times the coin will imply it is not raining outside. Truth delivery systems cannot guess, they must be consistent in their conclusions. Aliens who cannot utilise our form of logical interpretation as defined by the early Geeks, cannot know truth through logic. Our system of logic would not be true for them. Perhaps they may have some other truth delivery system which MUST BE TRUE for them.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-06-2003, 09:59 AM	#71
sophie Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: On the road to extinction. . . Posts: 1,485	yguy, you concluded that truth exists without regard to our ability or desire to perceive it. This I cannot deny, and I cannot deny it through the use of reason. The simple explaination must be that truth had to be there in the first place. If we ever try to get at the truth, it is there waiting to be known, (edit) or some form of the truth is there available to be known. We usually argue about how the truth can be known.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.