John Page

So, you realized/decided it was true that you don't know how you decided/realized what the truth was?

Here's your earlier post, below, - in which context I am merely asking how you perceived the truth. (After we can look to where the truth is that you perceived).

yguy

[sophistical implications deleted]

Yes.

I'll answer when you tell me how you perceived the "truth" that your truth and my truth can be different.

John Page

I perceive the following example to be true:

"Some say it is true there is a god, while some say it is true that there is no god. Irrespective of whether the god exists, but assuming the subjects are all talking about the same god, the truths of some are false and the others are true."

Looking forward to your answer to "So, you realized/decided it was true that you don't know how you decided/realized what the truth was?"

Cheers, John

yguy

First of all, it's patent nonsense, as truths which are false are not truths but lies. Beyond that, it doesn't address the question.

I answered that one. Read the post again.

John Page

Originally posted by John Page
I perceive the following example to be true:

"Some say it is true there is a god, while some say it is true that there is no god. Irrespective of whether the god exists, but assuming the subjects are all talking about the same god, the truths of some are false and the others are true."
OK, yguy, how do I know when someone is telling a lie?
You answered with "Yes", sorry I meant to ask how (did you you realize/decide it was true that you don't know how you decided/realized what the truth was?)

Before, you said you hadn't got the foggiest - which statement seems a little at odds with your knowing when people are telling lies.

Cheers, John

yguy

If they contradict something you know to be true, you know they're lying. Otherwise you may not know one way or the other unless their demeanor gives them away.

How do we know that "what we know to be true" is actually true? By the same method by which we perceive our own ignorance about anything.

I don't see why. My computer knows 1+1=2, but it doesn't know how it knows that. Likewise, we are to varying degrees connected to a higher truth which we cannot comprehend. What we have which the computer lacks is the ability to know that the knowledge comes from an unknown place.

John Page

Again, how does one know what is true?
...and that method would be what?

I don't see anything here that denies one person's truth can't be another person's falsehood (As I have previously asserted by example). Therefore, truth is relative to the "system of truth telling" or, as sophie protests, the "truth delivery system".

I therefore think it matters a great deal how one realizes/decides the truth. Without a reliable or efficacious system for this, truth lies redolent with such manner of things as itches, burps and the rustling of leaves.

Cheers, John

yguy

Can't tell you that. I'm not sure there are words for it.

Does it matter? We know that somebody knows something, right? If nobody knew anything, how would anyone survive?

I pointed out the obvious flaw in that example.

No, the perception of truth is relative to that delivery system - objective truth is not.

You cannot properly equate realizing with deciding. They are by no means synonymous. A decision as to the truth of a proposition is egotistical and based on the underlying belief that we can make things true by deciding they are true.

Indeed, our "truth delivery systems" are corrupted by our unwillingness to admit error. That is the first truth a person needs to see about themselves.

John Page

Didn't see an obvious flaw, lies are just truths that are seen as false from the observer's view.
So your so-called "objective truth" has no delivery system? How then do we come to know it? I think it a convenience of your argument that you invent this spectre of an objective truth, especially so as you are merely providing the "truth" from the point of view of the yguy delivery system.I don't mind whether you say realizing or deciding. Your denial that we can decide truth is equally egotistical - can we not pick a system (such as logic) by which truth shall be decided? Do we not decide by that picking?
Does this admission of error mean I've won the argument?

Cheers, John

yguy

They have nothing to do with the observer's POV, because the observer may see a lie as truth or vice-versa.

No, we just don't know what it is beyond that part of it constituted by our perception.

What makes you expect a different answer the fifth time you ask the question?

I could be doing that, as viewed through the lens of your perception - which I have no doubt strongly resembles a coke bottle.

Then you have no understanding of what I said.

What is the alternative? Illogic?

Yes. That's why I don't do that.