Thomas Ash

Yes, I'll stick with that definition. I was just checking that we were both meaning roughly the same term when we said we agreed or disagreed with the existence of absolute truth.

John Page

Keith, Kantian, Hugo:

As an extension of the current debate, here is a thread I started that discusses the issues around the mind/body border. If you believe it true that you exist and there is an external reality, how would you characterize the borderline?

Mind/Body Border Debate

I chose to defend the position that entities within the mind are abstractions. To my amusement the latter part of the debate is with a Kantian position that seems to deny the abstract can be information represented by physical entites. As an analogy, a word written on a piece of paper only have meaning in relation to the surrounding words on the paper and in our minds (i.e. as we read them); thus, a thought would have meaning in the context of other thoughts and sense data.

Cheers, John

Kantian

Words within the language i employ. Call it linguistic idealism if you like, but my words are the limits of my world. My access to the world is via language, and my subjective beliefs, my sense of the self, "Kantian," stem from the grammatical structure (Descartes) of language. Thoughts without language is impossible, and perception without interpretation is also impossible. I think within the structure of language. I am talking about a word in language when i am talking about the world.

~Transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Kantian

I do not disagree with this, but you have to be more precise & careful with your choice of words. Is identity a subspecies of the “intersubjective game,” i.e. language, we employ, or is it strictly internal? It cannot be both.
Dancing ever closer to my position, are we?
So we gain this “mechanism” from learning, or is it innate?
Which begs the further question- the message is...?
Hey, I'm on vacation. No scientific quibbling over data will ever occur on my clock!
Would that be the social structure that is already present when we are born?
That’s not correct, but let’s leave Tarski alone for now.
Nice save.
It’s not a proof but a diagram. http://home.att.net/~Andemicael/./figure.html
What sort of proof do you require?
No, I wouldn’t go that far. It’s another thing to call something transcendent ‘mystical,’ that is if we are using Kant’s terminology. In a phenomenological sense, the mind is an emergent property of matter, i.e. the brain. I would avoid such Kantian baggage, such as modeling philosophy after the sciences, since they are what cripple the analytic tradition these days.
Nor was I implying that, but you did declare that the location of the 3rd man argument lay within the mind/brain, commiting a categorical error by giving the mind spatio-temporal properties, when in reality the argument is actually a human activity, a language game, not within the mind.
How come? Do you have something against empiricism? I’m trying to find the origin of those “prototype definitions,” in order to shake off any potentially foul idealistic overtones. Hence, the empirical origin of ‘prototype definitions.’

It’s likely I am too thick witted to grasp the nuances of your joke, but you just gave me a vague answer.

• First, you said: ”...meaning comes from the context of language and ultimately I hold that must be reality.”
• Then, I asked:“Then what is the context of language?”
• Lastly, you said:“The context of language is reality.”

Priceless!:notworthy

And am I correct in the assumtion you define reality by the mysterious phrase, "context of language?"

~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

John Page

Subspecies? Identity plays a role in language (that facilitates the intersubjective game, as you call it) and stems from the identities formed in our minds.

Think of it this way, our minds do not directly participate in reality but receive sense data about reality. This sense data is at the boundary of our minds and the external world. We may perceive patterns within sets of sense data and remembered sets of sense data. Such sets of sense data become axiomatic concepts can be given an identity - and this is irrespective of there being any "internal" language to describe the identity.

For example, we may recognize a dog from the sense data presented to us. Thus the sense data set has the identity "dog". Please note, however, that dogs can come in many shapes and sizes and can be viewed from many angles. Arriving at subjective identities for sense data is therefore not a trivial task.

A similar process can be applied to our thoughts, which may be considered internally generated sense data, which may also be given identities (e,g, idealistic, materialistic, silly).

Language, therefore, is only meaningful and relevant in relation to the identities we can intersubjectively share. Perhaps you should think more what you are talking about, rather than how you are talking about it. (Back to ontology/epistemology, eh!)

(This on the mechanism for forming identities)
It may be a mixture, I believe the physical mechanics have to been in place, especially for raw sense data, but we do also "learn how to learn" which may be necessary for complex or compund identities.
Out to lunch.
(This in response to my requesting a proof to your assertion that minds do not exist in space and time).
Proof of how the mind operates separate from the brain, for example.

BTW I looked at the diagram and agree that we sense persistence. IOW the truth of existence is manufactured by the mind by comparing changes in sense data at the same spatial location. However, any assertion that the mind does not itself participate in spatio-temporal reality sounds like you're inviting the fairies in again.

I think the many experiments into brain function provide much evidence that the functioning of the mind largely takes place there. Frontal lobotomy, anyone? Split brains on the side? Minds may be abstract, but experiemental evidence is that they are dependent upon physical substrate - our bodies.
The mind exists in space and time. Put someone's brain to sleep and their mind is non-evident. Mind is a process.

IMO you make a category error (in your Theory of Persistence) but stating existence is a process. Rather, existence is a phenomenon detected by the mind through a persistence of values and patterns in sense data.

BTW you may wish to consider that mere persistence is not enough and a state of flux is required. e.g. If we saw only black constantly this would be of no interest and we wouldn't detect the existence of anything. If, however, we introduce more colors, we realize what black "is" in relation to alternative values.
Why, their origin would be from the sense data of reality as described in my response earlier in this post. Consider, a child learns the identity of a tree through continued exposure to trees. The child does not necessarily have a word for the tree at this point. Finally, depending upon the language environment, the word used to refer to the identity "tree" will be different.

This last point illustrates how meaning comes from reality, rather than language itself.

Anyway, did you really mean "original empirical bits of information". Didn't you intend "original bits of empirical information"? Either way, the meaning comes from your reality, not the words you used.
Vice versa. My first and second statements are consistent, would it make you happy if the second statement read "The context of the meaning of language"?

The context of anything gives rise to its meaning, here's what the Oxford Dictionary says "context n. parts that surround a word or passage and clarify its meaning. Substitute "reality" for the sum of the parts.

Any more questions on the truth about reality and the reality of truth?

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

Kantian said:
"Words within the language i employ. (Fragment) Call it linguistic idealism if you like, but my words are the limits (sic) of my world. My access to the world is via language, and my subjective beliefs, my sense of the self, "Kantian," stem from the grammatical structure (Descartes) of language. Thoughts without language is (sic) impossible, and perception without interpretation is also impossible. I think within the structure of language. I am talking about a word in language when i am talking about the world."

I disagree.

You are right that--for healthy adult human beings--perception is impossible without interpretation. But, interpretation isn't necessarily--or even intially--linguistic.

I don't remember specific tastes or colours linguistically. I can describe these things using words, but the word 'blue' cannot be understood by anyone who has not personally experienced 'blue'.

Language does not fully convey our thoughts, our concepts. The thoughts are the concepts; words only refer to concepts.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

Here's an honest suggestion, Keith - no rhetoric or humour in this post. Take a look at Derrida's deconstruction of Saussure's semiotic theory and the former's claim that signifiers slide into other signifiers without ever reaching a signified; hence "there is nothing outside the text". Take your time as i plan to hit the books again myself; still, i'll be interested to learn what you think.

Waning Moon Conrad

True. This shows the danger of having a quick look at the first few posts when bleary eyed and tired and then charging in with an opinion. I should have taken the trouble to read the whole thing.

I had recently read something which suggested that truth was an authentic existent which I took to mean something that is an actual entity and sits up in a high dimension radiating trueness to everything it deems worthy.

Waning Moon Conrad

My understanding is that there is a difference between reative and absolute truth otherwise there would be no point in identifying them.

Relative truth is that a flower does exist.

Absolute truth is that the flower whilst being there, is there due to a collaboration of causes and conditions. It's a manifestation of DNA, elements, molecules, minerals and it will pass away.

Both truths are useful.

Absolute is useful because it reminds us that nothing is a static entity but that everything is a manifestation of universal flux.

Relative is useful because even though the flower might be nothing more than the totality of its details, it's often convenient to identify it, smell it, enjoy it etc.

Neither truth is useful to bees. Only the pollen is useful.

Keith Russell

Hugo:

I'll see what I can do in the next few weeks.

Thanks for the suggestion; I'll get back with you when I've had a chance to 'hit the books'.

Keith.