yguy

Thanks for the link.

"I have some of my properties purely in virtue of the way I am. (My mass is an example.) I have other properties in virtue of the way I interact with the world. (My weight is an example.) The former are the intrinsic properties, the latter are the extrinsic properties."

From this, I don't see how weight is any more a quality attributed by an observer than is mass. Both concepts represent verifiable qualities, and would exist whether there was an observer or not.

That aside, if extrinsic truth is that which is attributed by an observer, i.e., it is perceived truth, then what Sophie appears to be saying in gratuitously esoteric and verbose fashion is that if we don't perceive the truth, we don't perceive it.

Unless I'm missing something.

John Page

I think they are both intrinsic, mass (measure of bulk) and weight (effect of mass on earth) are just measures with different contexts.

Take the statement "The ball is green". Green is an extrinsic property endowed upon the ball by the mind that perceives the result of electromagnetic waves reflected off the ball as green.

Over summarized perhaps, because she's also probing the accuracy of perception when she says "...if the delivery system is flawed in its representational construct and its instantiationable content, the accuracy of the original experience is greatlly diminished. " which I take to mean "If our perception is distorted, what we might think is truth is, in fact, illusion."

Cheers, John

yguy

I think the author would point out that mass is independent of "context", whereas weight is not - at least within a Newtonian paradigm. At any rate, it appears there is not a real consenus on the idea - at least between you and the author.

I don't think I can buy that entirely. Except for the color-blind, we all know what green is, even if we call it something else because a language difference. If we can somehow delude ourselves into seeing the ball as red, it remains an object whose surface reflects light of wavelength x, commonly perceived as green. However, it would fit the author's definition of an extrinsic property, since the perception of green doesn't come from the ball.

John Page

Neither mass not weight are independent of context They are intrinsic, measurable properties. Here, from UCLA
Your physics explanation reinforces the point is that the ball is not made of "green". Its color is therefore extrinsic. (Its intrinsic properties include the ability to reflect/absorb different wavelengths of light).

Cheers, John

yguy

That they are measurable properties is not at issue. Where in that link is it implied that mass is dependent on context?

"2. A student's mass on Earth is 50 kilograms. If this student went to the Moon, would her mass be more, less, or the same?"

Middle-school level physics says her mass is the same. How then is mass context-dependent?

John Page

Thus, the context of mass and frame of reference for its measurement within the metric system is a lump of metal in France.

Cheers, John

sophie

Hi ya fellas,

What I have been trying to communicate concerning extrinsic truth, and have failed, is extrinsic truth exists outside of us. Truths about the sun are extrinsic to me because I am not the sun. Truths about other people and their experiences are extrinsic to me because I am not other people.

Truths dealing with my state of mind, my health, my desires, my emotions, are intrinsic to me because they are part of the beast called I. Any representations I utilise which reside as part of me are intrinsic truths to me.

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).


John, specifically when I say delivery system, I am coupling a few things. There is the information delivery system which is supposed to mirror the experience and supply the representational content, and there are the (for a lack of a better words) truth-finders which utilise the representational content to derive the truths, and make these truths available. Confused as yet? A diagram would be better, but I am a little lazy these days.

In the truth delivery system the important methods are the truth-finders.


yguy, I think at this level of abstraction, the two statements : (1) no delivery system - no truth, and (2) no delivery system – no perception of truth, are functionally equivalent. No perception of truth does indeed imply no truth. Using another line of argument, it would be possible to have the perception of the information which leads to truth being available, but the concluding processes of the delivery system, which are the truth-finders, may be missing or corrupted, as you previously noted. This essentially entails no truth will ever be obtained because the (whole) delivery system is false,

sophie

John, I claimed : True systems of truth delivery should be universally true.

You replied : I don't understand - what do you propose it means for something to be universally true?

I clarify : John, true systems of truth delivery should be universally true. 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.

Remember logic is one way of deducing truths. Physics is a neat way of deriving extrinsic truths to a high degree of accuracy.

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.

yguy

I like the way you put that.

Dunno about that, but you're making sense to me so far.

Again, if you are saying that our failure to perceive the truth will make it seem to us that there is no truth, I agree. I'm just saying that truth exists without regard to our ability or desire to perceive it. Can I get an amen on that?