Luiseach

Hi. (sorry for delay in response...I'm in the process of moving, and today I've been trying to pack a closet-full of clothes into one duffel bag...what I really need is a Tardis! )

Anyway, thanks for your response.

Excellent points...especially about the non-intentional transference of information. Could we perhaps turn this on its head, however, and say instead that 'She interpreted the swaying of the trees as evidence for the existence of wind'?

As for information that isn't received, as in your example (2), do you mean here that communication hasn't taken place, although information has been transmitted?

I like the model of communication you're developing here. Very interesting.

Another good clarification. Yes, a properly functioning mind is necessary for the existence of communication, intentional or non-intentional.

I completely agree with Phaedrus's view, especially this bit:

How do we begin extricating the message from the medium, in your view? (I understand what you're saying about the message being about something that may or may not be the medium)

Okay, if the message can be extricated from the medium (or media), and your example is a strong one for that possibility (such as conveying the information from newspaper to computer to telephone, etc.), I still can't see how we can be sure that the message is discernible from the media being used to convey it. After all, we've just moved the message from one medium to another...information is always being conveyed by media, isn't it? Can we have media-free information?

Absolutely! But again, the mind that perceives both the process of communication and its content is itself a medium. What do you think?

John Page

Definitely UK! (Apart form the wardrobe, that is.)
Sure - we can interpret what she interprets in many ways in many ways.
Yes. End-to-end communication as intended has not taken place. Communication has been attempted and can succeed in varying degrees from zero to 100%. Distrotion[sic] can occur, context errors can be made (e.g. TARDIS without the cultural reference) and so on.
Properly functioning - damn, that cuts me out....
This can be answered at multiple levels. For example, with the spoken word we have the mechanical action of the ear, the generation of the nerve signal which is then analyzed for frequency patterns over time periods, the extraction of phonetically (natural) relevant components of speech and placing it in context with other stimuli, previous conversations etc.

I would like to note that at the self-conscious level it appears we can choose not to hear or listen to a particular message even though the subconscious processing has made it available. I beleive there is a focusing mechanism that prioritizes incoming information to determine which messages are flagged for conscious attention. The focusing mechanism needs to be adaptive so we can learn what to pay attention to.
I don't believe in "pure information" - there has to be a knower! I acknowledge that different media can have their own characteristics and some can convey subtelty of meanings that others cannot (the pictures vs. words thing, for example). Please consider that in the case of humans the medium in which the message is originated is grey matter and it is received in grey matter - that there is stuff between different brains that isn't grey matter proves for me that "the medium is the message" is either false or a vast oversimplification.

Cheers, John

phaedrus

Please elaborate on "correspondence between mental states"..

Doesnt this suffice? "Truth" and "meaning" refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply "representational"). Truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding.

John Page

Hi Phaedrus:

While I am hampered by my having to use language to communicate about that which is non-language intertwined , here's my attaempt!

As a starter, please consider sections 5.2 and 5.3 from the attached link on knowledge and truth .
Truth is a meaning (so I agree in part) but meanings do not require texts. An abstract mental concept can "mean" a part of reality (by reference) with no intervening text - see here:

Also, I'm not sure about the author's use of the words "creative" and "interpret". "Creative" implies there may be a secret ingredient that is making something out of nothing - but if this is not what was intended I have no beef with its use. Regarding "interpret", I have no issue with the word providing it is not meant in the sense of "translate", the latter being an exclusively language-related operation. This is not to be confused with the wider sense of the word "interpret" which is to explain or understand the meaning of something, where the something can range from physical cause/effect through behavior to words.

Cheers, John

Luiseach

lol!

How does this potential for a multiplicity of interpretations of any given fact (for example an event in the past) fit in with your view of truth as a pragmatic matter of consensus? (that is your view, isn't it...?).

My own view is this: if the truth is open to as many interpretations as there are interpreters, then there has to be some kind of 'common ground' on which the interpreters can stand for effective communication to take place. For there to be coherence. I understand the pragmatic reasons for consensus building. However, and this is what makes me uneasy...this common ground/consensus truth can come to be viewed as the official truth for a given time, context or ideology...

It means the truth is vulnerable to monopoly. There is a possibility for common ground/consensus views of truth to dominate a discourse, thereby silencing or placing under erasure dissenting views of truth that may be equally valid, or more accurate than the accepted truth(s). The 'truth' can exclude and preclude potentially valuable interpretations in favour of majority rulings on what the truth is. (here I'm thinking about 'epistemology' and, let's say, 'feminist epistemology').

Whose knowledge is it, in other words?

How do we go about analysing the process of consensus building in what is considered 'true'? Who gets to say what is and isn't true, and why?

Interesting thought, that. The need for context for communication to take place. I completely agree. An understanding of Dr. Who, what the Tardis is and does, in order for irony/humour to be communicated and received. The meaning of words used in communication can be so easily lost, if one of the interpreting minds has no shared knowledge of 'Tardis,' or something else that is required for clear communication to occur.

Which is why philosophy is at once so important and so painstaking...I always think of philosophical enquiry as a matter, not of truth-building exactly, but rather of clarification. The problem with clarification, of course, is that the words we use are themselves open to a multiplicity of interpretations, and these interpretations themselves are dependant upon context and shared knowledge.


lol...and me as well!

But, seriously, the issue of what is and isn't a 'properly functioning' mind is probably also relevant to a discussion of the truth. What say you? How do we go about defining a mind that is functioning properly enough to generate, receive, understand, etc. the 'truth'?

Yes. I agree this is one level of interpretation...the mechanical level?

This is interesting. Good point to raise, actually: the focusing mechanism in the brain is probably necessary for the self-conscious interpreter to sift amongst relevant data in the brain in order to interpret incoming messages. It's like reading...learning to focus not on each letter, or even each word, of any given sentence, but rather to group them in units to facilitate comprehension. Concentration. I've read that people with photographic memories are not necessarily at an advantage in comparison with the rest of us who have more selective (or perhaps pragmatically flawed!) powers of retention.

Agreed. And the knower/interpreter is more than just a receptacle and conduit for information...self-consciousness is as creative as it is perceptive, as Phaedrus indicates in his analysis of truth and knowledge.

This creativity part of truth is what is most interesting, in my opinion...what role does creativity play in truth? How much of a role should it play?

I think I agree here that the McLuhan thesis is at first glance an oversimplification. At second glance, however, perhaps he was trying to say something more than the obvious? I think the next bit of his thesis is something along the lines of '...and the message is us.' What do you think of this? (I'll need to dig out my McLuhan stuff to get the full quotation!)

John Page

See here for my attack on Pragmatism
Common ground == reality? That's not to say that reality is a fixed stake in the ground though (again see Phaedrus' quotes). IMO, this brings us back to intersubjectivity.

A point I feel strongly about though (rational feeling?), truth is not "out there" to be interpreted. Truths are a concoction of the mind/brain, the latter containing the truth-telling process. The mind/brain may have many components or areas that give rise to competing truths (e.g. He loves me, he loves me not.) If you had said "The meaning of truth is open to as many interpretations as there are interpreters..." I would have said yes, but there can be a one to many relationship between interpreters and interpretations.
Ah! It is the truth-tellers that exclude and preclude. In this way, I agree, for the subset of humans that are feminists there may be a particular epistemology that fits their way of telling the truth.
An intersubjective truth is the product of societal interaction (between the brains/minds) for which that truth is subscibed to. Some Greeks had a "Might is right" maxim.
Yes, but to determine whether it is functioning "properly" you need criteria and standards against which to judge. There is no objective universal "the truth".
Creative in the sense that it is an arrangement of material that instantiates the objects of its own perception (albeit significantly driven by sense data). One might call this recognition - but recognition presumes there is an archetypal concept to compare with when, IMO, the mind/brain instantiates mental archetypes by analyzing for patterns in sense data.
Hmmmm. How about "The mind manufactures truth."

Should? I should hardly know the truth if it was presented to me on a silver platter, for this would be some other wisdom that i would need to digest.

Cheers, John

phaedrus

John

As a starter, please consider sections 5.2 and 5.3 from the attached link on knowledge and truth .

I prefer the main course typically, starters dont do much for moi Will wait for an elaboration of "truth arises from a correspondence between mental states"

Truth is a meaning (so I agree in part) but meanings do not require texts. An abstract mental concept can "mean" a part of reality (by reference) with no intervening text - see here:

Afraid you missed something mate....if you look at the quote it says ....as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." which could very well include what you are talking about.

Also, I'm not sure about the author's use of the words "creative" and "interpret". "Creative" implies there may be a secret ingredient that is making something out of nothing - but if this is not what was intended I have no beef with its use. Regarding "interpret", I have no issue with the word providing it is not meant in the sense of "translate", the latter being an exclusively language-related operation. This is not to be confused with the wider sense of the word "interpret" which is to explain or understand the meaning of something, where the something can range from physical cause/effect through behavior to words.

My reading of the author (madison talking about gadamer and hermeneutics) would be mostly the same with no hidden agendas. As some of the souls i have grown to like, this integrated approach (instead of black or white or say a cartesian approach) appeals/makes more sense to moi. In the same article Truth is not something simply to be discovered ("represented") but something to be made—through the exercise of communicative rationality

While, this makes the whole concept post-modernist in its approach but at the same time leaves something for us to work than a proverbial "deconstructed" tower of babel

IS THIS A SIMULACRUM

jp

leyline

The problem with defining truth is that it is so fundamental to people’s identity and world view that you are bound to get people who disagree because people have such different identities and world views.

Thus even if one was to deduce from that that “Truth is an agreement” then someone is bound to disagree! Pointing out that all the people who claim that ‘truth is not an agreement’ are in agreement, therefore has two opposite effects :-

To the person who believes that ‘truth is an agreement’ this shows the necessary agreement that is intrinsic to truth, even amongst those who disagree. Even those who disagree cannot escape because they agree with each other to disagree with ‘truth is an agreement’. The only possibility of avoiding this trap is to find a definition of truth that is so original that nobody agrees with you! But if this was the true definition of truth then only you can ever know about it and this feels like megalomania. And besides you just couldn’t trust other people not to agree with you. People are like that.

From the complementary point of view however the above argument shows that the quality of agreement still holds amongst two diametrically opposite views. Since one is necessarily true and the other is necessarily false, this demonstrates that agreement is independent of truth and therefore agreement has nothing to do with it.

They would also disagree with me and state that truth has nowt to do with identity either but is necessarily independent of it. Any response by me that points out that that is a point at which we differ and helps define our different identities, would be dismissed as irrelevant gibberish.

The truth of the statement A = A can be seen as an identity relationship or not. ( I am deliberately playing with words here )You can either identify with the statement as with any truth, or see its truth as independent of the identity relationship. Depending upon whether you do or not, crucially affects your view of the truth. Thus when we agree on a truth you can either notice the agreement, or see the truth as independent of us.

This highlights a major problem about written truth. In order for it to be true, we have to trust that we are interpreting it the same way as the author intended. (like the previous paragraph) Thus agreement is intrinsic to written truth at least with respect in how to read it.

Of course some would point out that although that type of agreement is intrinsic to the communication of truth, it is not intrinsic to the truth itself. After all the same truth can be expressed in different languages. Others would respond that the agreement in how to interpret what the author means is impossible to separate from the meaning, because the meaning is part of the cultural agreement of language let alone how the author is using it, and thus truth is always with some kind of agreement because it requires language. Others would say that just because truth is expressible in language, doesn’t mean to say that it cannot be independent of it. A counter response is since it is impossible to communicate truth without language, an objective proof that truth is independent of language is not possible because the proof would require language itself! …… “Rubbish” comes back the response and so on…..


The problem with defining truth is that it is so fundamental to people’s identity and world view. It’s a matter of faith whether we believe a particular truth as independent of us, or an agreement between us. Ie Not all fundamental aspects of this universe are unambiguous…………. Simultaneity abounds.

That’s my personal take on it.

John Page

Perhaps sir would prefer a visual feast by way of this Diagram of Comparison of Mental States . I'm trying to get the diagram to come out better but hopefully you'll get the idea that each layer of abstraction entails the comparison with the criteria for truth (of the thing being perceived). So, at Plane 1 a distinction is made between thing and not thing, the result being a perception that it is true that there is something (see left hand side of Plane 1). At Plane 2 a comparison with the resulting mental states and the form of "n" (also a mental state, in this case what I call the axiomatic concept of "n") is made resulting in the perception of n's. At Plane 3 the instances (as mental states)of the form "n" are quantified to perceive the truth of the existence of 3 n's.

I appreciate that the diagram I put forward is only conceptual - creating mental states that I hope are analagous to the mental states that actually cause the perceptions.....
OK, but only if the "texts, other people or "the world"." are exclusive or's.
OK only if the truth discussed here is public, intersubjective truth that is "made" by activity of the society concerned. For an individual, truth is manufactured by nervous system activity which is impacted by internal and external (including societal) events.
I've been thinking about this. Maybe its more accurately terms a Realacrum - unless you think we're really brains in vats!

Cheers, John

John Page

doppler