Keith Russell

Understanding turns information into truth?

So?

Understanding what turns information (again, information of what?) into truth.

I don't think just any understanding of something can turn just any information about something, into a 'truth' about anything.

Specifics, anyone?

K

John Page

Understand what the information is about, what the information reveals (when analyzed through understanding, which IMO is a thought process) about the world around us. e.g. information can reveal the state of a plant at different times to reveal the fact that plants grow (unless dead, in which case they shrivel up).

Cheers, John

sophie

ME : Understanding turns information into truth?
Keith : So?
ME : Instead you could have mentioned 'profound'.

Keith : Understanding what turns information (again, information of what?) into truth.
ME : In this instance, whatever it is which reveals the truth to Keith.

Keith : I don't think just any understanding of something can turn just any information about something, into a 'truth' about anything.
ME : With a stiff reading of what I proposed, your statement is evident. Why mention the obvious Keith? Should we not be searching for the truth instead?

Keith : Specifics, anyone?
ME : I just cannot imagine how much more specific one can be about the truth.

ME : I think I understand what you have tried to do, and with this understanding I have your truth in mind.

yguy

Busy guy, huh?

sophie

John Page, in your schema understand turns information into facts which can later be tested for truthfulness. Truth implies causality.

Cheers, finally John, you have revealed your truth delivery mechanism.

Understanding turns information into facts. Might this also imply you can understand the information does not relay facts. Can you make a broad claim that understanding turns all information into facts, or only those bits of information which can be understood to be facts? There is a subtle difference between the two strands of understanding.

Why does the fact have to go through further tests in order to ascertain if the fact is true or not true? Why is this a necessary condition in order for John Page to deliver his truth to the waiting world. ( I assume John mirrors a man when I say 'his truth' (gentle chuckle)).

John Page

Greetings, System S:
Yes, but people have different opinions as to the orifice from which it emanates.
Yes, the facts are extrinsic to the information, intrinisic to the thing that is doing the understanding.
A fact is something that appears true or self-evident a priori. But facts may be true or false.
Because it is a fact. (maniacal laughter) But only necessarily true for my concept of reality (insane giggling). Which proves nothing (brain explodes, metaphorically).

Who am I? I am the intersubjective me in you - link here

Cheers, John

sophie

John : A fact is something that appears true or self-evident a priori. But facts may be true or false.

To tag this all together, John Page would claim that a fact is something which appears true due to the understanding surrounding that fact. John Page would also claim a fact is something which is self-evident a priori through understanding.

John Page would also claim to possibly be in posession of true facts and false facts. Therefore John Page would claim to understand true facts and understand false facts.

Would it not be easier for John Page to understand true information and false information rather than confuse himself by not appropriately promoting information understood to be true as a fact, and demoting information understood to be false as mis-information.


Does my explaination allow John Page to refine his truth delivey mechanism in order to not falsify his delivery system?

sophie

Your final mark on this test for truth, John Page, which proves nothing, shows me a lack of coherent truth within the sub-systems that govern your truth delivery mechanisms.

Albeit this is my verification of your truth and my application of my truth in the context of your so-called truth delivery systems, you are at will to reject my understanding of your truth. In the final analysis it will impute nothing towards your personal dissatisfaction with your truth gathering fobias.

The final truth I may have to face is an extrinsic truth which lies befuddled within your mind which I can call verily mis-understood.

spacer1

Leyline:
I use them interchangeably, although I would distinguish reality as being everything there is, while a fact is some aspect of that reality (Consciousness is necessary to isolate a fact, but isn't necessary at all for reality. Come to think of it, facts do not exist, other than as the supposed extramental counterparts to truths. Reality, however, does exist.).
I agree that we each bring our own unique associations along in our use of words, but there must be some fixed, common meaning for the majority of words, otherwise language would break down altogether. (Just as the cells of our body change continuously over time, while our body maintains an overall similarity on the whole.)
Again, I agree that knowledge of reality requires a knower (or a culture of knowers), which requires consciousness, which entails awareness of self and other.
I disagree that a measurement is an interpretation in itself. Measurements or (I think you mean) mathematics is merely a different way to describe reality than language. The reason for the "measurer's" measurements, or their expectations regarding the results of the measurements, may be an interpretation, but the measures themselves, like words, must have a fixed and common meaning.
I don't believe the scientist's relationship to the world is any different than the seer of the ghost. The person who saw the ghost assumes there was some physical object in reality that they perceived with their eyes, and perhaps other senses. The scientist would perform experiments or look for evidence (in the same reality that the ghost-seer perceives) to determine whether there was such a physical object providing the ghost-seer with her perceptions. If it fails the scientist's tests (which I talked about in my last post) then it would be more likely to be a product of the ghost seer's mind than an actual occurrence in reality.
This sentence makes me wince. I think you have to be very careful not to make the claim that our minds somehow produce reality (which I confine to the external world). We can be aware that we are 'in', or a part of, reality, and that we have perceptions and knowledge of it, but I suggest being careful not to slip into solipsism or idealism. Sometimes our theories, or merely self-explanations, can be wrong. If so, it is because they are wrong with respect to reality. Reality isn't effected by our thoughts of it, other than in our own actions; in the experiences of the knower.
No, it doesn't. The two cultures have different theories describing the same reality (the eclipse). Which do you suppose has greater explanatory power - the alignment of stars, planets and/or moons or the work of gods? (I'd say the former, for to say god(s) did it entails, "but I don't know how.")

John Page

Agreed. Except that extrinsic truth is, of course, within your befuddled mind and not my befuddled mind. The truth of this is intrinsic to my mind.