Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Luiseach · 07-03-2003, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
"The truth" as some universal piece of cheese is politicised. Control over belief (agitprop) is power over the believers - hence religions, for example. BTW I'm a "By the people, for the people" person.

Hmmm...this makes me wonder, though, about the possibility that by relying on that maxim, we are moving towards a definition of 'truth' as dependent upon majority rule/consensus. Is this a good or a bad thing, in your view? Or could it be both, depending upon which truths are being accepted by the 'people' and for which purposes? How does the truth-making process work within the parameters of the 'By the people, for the people' position? What if the 'people' are in agreement, but wrong?

Quote:

The media circus facilitates, titilates the minds of the communicees to gain their attention and present the facts in a believable way. This is the competition for truth of relevance, defining issues up or down.

I agree that the media do this (and, as you mentioned before, religions do it too). I was wondering more about other discourses, however, ones we tend to place more trust in, such as the education system, science, medicine, and so on.

I would think that the media is not the only discourse to engage in power-plays over the 'truth' or even over 'facts' themselves...what say you?

John Page · 07-03-2003, 08:54 AM

Hi Lu!

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
Hmmm...this makes me wonder, though, about the possibility that by relying on that maxim, we are moving towards a definition of 'truth' as dependent upon majority rule/consensus.

LOL. If we are moving to (an intersubjective) truth through consensus, at least we will be moving to a self-satisfying definition that intersubjective truths are reached through consensus.

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
What if the 'people' are in agreement, but wrong?

Tough. But what happens if the people who think the other people are wrong are in fact wrong themselves? All truth is subjective, and who is to judge otherwise? (Hypothetical question BTW).

Quote:

Originally posted by Luiseach
I was wondering more about other discourses, however, ones we tend to place more trust in, such as the education system, science, medicine, and so on.

They're all media. Can you believe that people used to believe that the sun went round the earth? (Another hypothetical question, BTW.)

Lu, to what extent do you believe one controls the truth that is presented to *one* by one's mind? By what mechanism does that truth appear before one?

Cheers, John

phaedrus · 07-04-2003, 06:22 AM

John

Belief is what we think is true. Humans can be contradictory though, reconciling their body of knowledge with their beliefs. IMO one can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time within the mind/brain - in which case which one is the truth?

What is true and what we "think" is true is a different? When we are saying truth is a result of subjective/inter-subjective, what we "think" is true, is what we accept as the "truth". In light of that "belief" plays a very central role in the process for truth

Not quite - there is a truth-telling process that compares two or more states in order to derive their degree of correspondence. i.e. it is the truth-telling process that does the manufacturing.

Is this process in itself a "state"?

No, I think of a state as a snapshot rather than an entity that might be consciously aware (although it may be a snapshot of an entity which is consciously aware). IOW I'm leaving consciousness out of it for now!

But it is a snapshot from whose perspective? Now why will these snapshots "correspond" to each other to give rise to the truth?

Yes to your question about processing but my wording was designed to admit that some sensory input is internal (a.k.a. feedback) and some is from outside the mind/brain.

Umm...you will have to elaborate on what could be internal sensory input.

I think input is not always the right way to conceive of the mind process, it is too passive. I believe there are processes that actively seek results/goals/values.

Expand sil vous plait

jp

Normal · 07-04-2003, 10:59 AM

You cannot think at all without presupposing reality exists.

Realists are no more begging the question then nihilists, or in fact those agnostic about reality, for to take any of those stances about what "truth" is, you presuppose it exists.

The realist will assume reality exists, and is very honest.

The nihilist will deny reality exists, and in doing so beg the question: upon what did they assume that to be true, and is in fact dishonest.

The agnostic will be unsure about truth, but presuppose the existence of a truth to be known.

So does this mean reality, in fact, exists? In a word: yes. Reality precedes cognition, because cognition is dependant on reality.

You have no choice but to believe reality exists, for reality precedes belief.

John Page · 07-04-2003, 07:38 PM

Hi Phaedrus!

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
What is true and what we "think" is true is a different? When we are saying truth is a result of subjective/inter-subjective, what we "think" is true, is what we accept as the "truth". In light of that "belief" plays a very central role in the process for truth.

Try your initial statement restated as "What we think is true and what we think we "think" is true is different?" My answer is a definite "maybe" - depends what the truth is.

My point is that a truth is determined by a thought process.

IMO a belief is an uncertain truth, (relatively

) epistemically weaker than what "truth" is supposed to be. Belief is also determined by a thought process. Belief comes after truth, though, we must know something first in order to be able to doubt it.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
Is this process in itself a "state"?

No, and this applies for all processes, not just the truth-telling one. A process takes place over time but a state is a "snapshot".

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
But it is a snapshot from whose perspective? Now why will these snapshots "correspond" to each other to give rise to the truth?

From the prespective of an observer.

The process of truth-telling compares the states to determine/manufacture the truth of one state w.r.t. another.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
Umm...you will have to elaborate on what could be internal sensory input.

The kind of input by which you know you are thinking, for example.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
I think input is not always the right way to conceive of the mind process, it is too passive. I believe there are processes that actively seek results/goals/values.

Expand sil vous plait

Using French is so passe, don't you think.

Seriously, though. Please consider the class of "passive" systems that are controlled by their external environment, classic input-process-output von Neumann stuff. Now compare to the class of active systems, perhaps sentient is the term, that control their external environment by being able to remember, understand and therefore predict and manipulate outcomes.

Cheers, John

John Page · 07-04-2003, 08:07 PM

Hi Median!

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
You cannot think at all without presupposing reality exists.

I could think before I knew anything about this wretched phantasm "reality", let alone presupposing it.

Anyway, aren't you proposing a contradiction given that supposing is a kind of thought (You cannot think without pre-thinking)?

Cheers, John

phaedrus · 07-05-2003, 03:33 AM

John

Try your initial statement restated as "What we think is true and what we think we "think" is true is different?" My answer is a definite "maybe" - depends what the truth is. My point is that a truth is determined by a thought process.

What is the truth? And how are both those statements different? (maybe). And the thought process entails our beliefs

IMO a belief is an uncertain truth, (relatively ) epistemically weaker than what "truth" is supposed to be. Belief is also determined by a thought process. Belief comes after truth, though, we must know something first in order to be able to doubt it.

While one can blame it on semantics....still how can a belief be an uncertain truth? (all knowledge is provisional). Do you precieve "truth" as something which is objective in nature and is out there waiting to discovered? If not, then the terms "belief" and "truth" could be used interchangeable (connotations notwithstanding). But truth cant be just "knowing something", if we accept something to be the truth, then we "believe" that to be the truth.

No, and this applies for all processes, not just the truth-telling one. A process takes place over time but a state is a "snapshot".

Ok, lets see. You are saying, there is a "process" which compares different "states" to derive their degree of correspondence. So how does this process "derive"? For doing that it will require a frame of reference, which could lead it to be being another state (or for verbal convenience => a meta-state )

From the prespective of an observer.

The process of truth-telling compares the states to determine/manufacture the truth of one state w.r.t. another.

But this is the mind we are talking about... and you defiend the state as "Snapshot of activity in a specific brain area", where does the observer come into the picture here?

The kind of input by which you know you are thinking, for example.

Umm....how is that an input? How does anyone know that they are thinking??? That is something that happens subconsciously.....expand...

Please consider the class of "passive" systems that are controlled by their external environment, classic input-process-output von Neumann stuff. Now compare to the class of active systems, perhaps sentient is the term, that control their external environment by being able to remember, understand and therefore predict and manipulate outcomes.

Nope....how do these active systems control external environment?? I am not talking neumann here...you said inputs withought a qualifier and hence asked.

This is what i said earlier on this particualr issue.......

Quote:

Saussure's notion of syntagma can offer one some help here in understanding how words mean or the whole communication process. Its communication not public relations and that communication can be explained through gadamer�s �fusion of horizons� or lets say it�s a dynamic process (a hermeneutic circle?) where there are no points of origin, it�s a continuous process where there is not just a linear �encoding and decoding�, but a two-way flow and interplay between thought, expression and meaning. Let me see�.think of it as a continuous and dissoluble unity of forms, there is no cause and effect, everything is integral.

What do you guys think of the following?

Merleau-Ponty's first point is that words, even when they finally achieve the ability to carry referential and, eventually, conceptual levels of meaning, never completely lose that primitive, strictly phonemic, level of "affective" meaning which is not translatable into their conceptual definitions. There is, he argues, an affective tonality, a mode of conveying meaning beneath the level of thought, beneath the level of the words themselves, which is contained in the words just insofar as they are patterned sounds, as just the sounds which this particular aistorical language uniquely uses, and which are much more like a melody--a "singing of the world"--than fully translatable, conceptual thought.

and this ��

The integration: of perception, action and language, resulting in the underlying isomorphism of all languages, combined with the true knowledge of the external world which the evolution of the cognitive and visual apparatus has made possible, opens the way to a new pursuit of philosophical truth through language. We need no longer distrust our own reasoning or our belief in the reality of causation in the external world. The intellectual development of mankind can proceed, as it is doing, but on a philosophically more secure basis and in the knowledge that language, as a flexible instrument designed to match the open-endedness of human experience (perception and action), can be a reliable medium for exploring, recording and developing man's knowledge of the external world and of his own nature

jp

John Page · 07-05-2003, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
What is the truth? And how are both those statements different? (maybe). And the thought process entails our beliefs

Perhaps you are ready for the entree this time? Link to truth definition and the diagram here.

I hope you will see that the phenomenology of truth that I propose is based on a cognitive model that uses the degree of correspondence between entities (arrived at through a process of comparison of entities) to derive a representation of the truth. Truth is thus a fabricated entity that exists only in minds.

Belief is to do with truth about truth. I don't necessarily disagree with you but it is the thought process that first entails truth and, as I suggested before, when we try and reconcile various truths we see it is true that some (previously regarded truths) are false. Hence we apprehend belief.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
While one can blame it on semantics....still how can a belief be an uncertain truth? (all knowledge is provisional).

Please see above.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
Do you precieve "truth" as something which is objective in nature and is out there waiting to discovered?

No, it is not "out there", the truth is a mental entity determined by the mind. So, it is "in here" waiting to be discovered.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
If not, then the terms "belief" and "truth" could be used interchangeable (connotations notwithstanding). But truth cant be just "knowing something", if we accept something to be the truth, then we "believe" that to be the truth.

Why can't the truth be just "knowing something"?

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
Ok, lets see. You are saying, there is a "process" which compares different "states" to derive their degree of correspondence. So how does this process "derive"? For doing that it will require a frame of reference, which could lead it to be being another state (or for verbal convenience => a meta-state )

Again, please see the links earlier in this post for a process description. The frame of reference is (patterns within) sense data.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
But this is the mind we are talking about... and you defiend the state as "Snapshot of activity in a specific brain area", where does the observer come into the picture here?

Maybe a misunderstanding here - the observer is the person trying to figure out what is going on (e.g. you) - not the subject.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
Umm....how is that an input? How does anyone know that they are thinking??? That is something that happens subconsciously.....expand...

Its an input to our thought process in general - I'm not differentiating between conscious/unconscious at this point. How do we know we are thinking? I gave one example - how about our memory of how good our memory is as another. (Although we're not aware of all memory deterioration, counter example Alzheimers.)

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
Nope....how do these active systems control external environment??

I thought I'd said it. For example, minds can dam rivers, make telephones, compose music. These are all creative acts foreign to, say, reality viewed solely through Newtonian physics.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
This is what i said earlier on this particualr issue.......
On Ponty "...There is, he argues, an affective tonality, a mode of conveying meaning beneath the level of thought,..."

I define thought as a word desribing all mental activity, so "meaning beneath the level of thought" is nonsensical to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus
This is what i said earlier on this particualr issue.......
And "The intellectual development of mankind can proceed, as it is doing, but on a philosophically more secure basis and in the knowledge that language, as a flexible instrument designed to match the open-endedness of human experience (perception and action), can be a reliable medium for exploring, recording and developing man's knowledge of the external world and of his own nature"

Steady on - how do we first know that human thought is a reliable medium etc.? Back to Nagel Land.....

Cheers, John

spacer1 · 07-05-2003, 05:20 PM

After reading through the last half of this discussion, I just wanted to make a couple of suggestions:

1. That concepts are used to direct our attention toward some aspect of reality, or abstractions thereof. John came close to this idea when the discussion was focusing around concept development and naming (page 4?). I would add that, where the concept-conceiver's attention is directed when they "name" their concept, is (assuming the concept is conceived in final form) the function of a word, only in the opposite direction.

2. That truth is not about the external world itself, but about our experiences of the external world. This is not to fall into empiricism, since our experiences include our application of concepts (even though those concepts may not be perfect). If truth is a verbalization of our experience of the external world, then it would logically come from the [i]best[i] explanation (a la Popper) of why we have those experiences, at any given time (this could include previous explanations for limitations of our senses, e.g., the earth is round, not flat).

Normal · 07-06-2003, 12:35 AM

Morning John,

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
I could think before I knew anything about this wretched phantasm "reality", let alone presupposing it.

I would argue you knew nothing about it until you presupposed a reality exists, you were just a feeling (cognitive) receptor.

My point was, cognition precedes actual thought; thought comes through accepting reality as real, and thus presupposing it.

Quote:

Originally posted by John Page
Anyway, aren't you proposing a contradiction given that supposing is a kind of thought (You cannot think without pre-thinking)?

Supposing reality exists is the first coherent thought you ever had. It's the basis for all deductive logic you derive after, including inferences about substance and identity. I suspect it came from repeated patterns of cognition that the mind could remember, but what do I know?

1. All thought is dependant on reality exisiting.
2. You can think
Therefore,
3. Reality Exists

Just try refuting 1...

So what's a thought that has absolutely no basis in reality?

Ciao

07-04-2003, 10:59 AM	#134
Normal Senior Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 639	begging for a question You cannot think at all without presupposing reality exists. Realists are no more begging the question then nihilists, or in fact those agnostic about reality, for to take any of those stances about what "truth" is, you presuppose it exists. The realist will assume reality exists, and is very honest. The nihilist will deny reality exists, and in doing so beg the question: upon what did they assume that to be true, and is in fact dishonest. The agnostic will be unsure about truth, but presuppose the existence of a truth to be known. So does this mean reality, in fact, exists? In a word: yes. Reality precedes cognition, because cognition is dependant on reality. You have no choice but to believe reality exists, for reality precedes belief.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-04-2003, 06:22 AM	#133
phaedrus Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Indus Posts: 1,038	John Belief is what we think is true. Humans can be contradictory though, reconciling their body of knowledge with their beliefs. IMO one can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time within the mind/brain - in which case which one is the truth? What is true and what we "think" is true is a different? When we are saying truth is a result of subjective/inter-subjective, what we "think" is true, is what we accept as the "truth". In light of that "belief" plays a very central role in the process for truth Not quite - there is a truth-telling process that compares two or more states in order to derive their degree of correspondence. i.e. it is the truth-telling process that does the manufacturing. Is this process in itself a "state"? No, I think of a state as a snapshot rather than an entity that might be consciously aware (although it may be a snapshot of an entity which is consciously aware). IOW I'm leaving consciousness out of it for now! But it is a snapshot from whose perspective? Now why will these snapshots "correspond" to each other to give rise to the truth? Yes to your question about processing but my wording was designed to admit that some sensory input is internal (a.k.a. feedback) and some is from outside the mind/brain. Umm...you will have to elaborate on what could be internal sensory input. I think input is not always the right way to conceive of the mind process, it is too passive. I believe there are processes that actively seek results/goals/values. Expand sil vous plait jp

07-05-2003, 05:20 PM	#139
spacer1 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 564	After reading through the last half of this discussion, I just wanted to make a couple of suggestions: 1. That concepts are used to direct our attention toward some aspect of reality, or abstractions thereof. John came close to this idea when the discussion was focusing around concept development and naming (page 4?). I would add that, where the concept-conceiver's attention is directed when they "name" their concept, is (assuming the concept is conceived in final form) the function of a word, only in the opposite direction. 2. That truth is not about the external world itself, but about our experiences of the external world. This is not to fall into empiricism, since our experiences include our application of concepts (even though those concepts may not be perfect). If truth is a verbalization of our experience of the external world, then it would logically come from the [i]best[i] explanation (a la Popper) of why we have those experiences, at any given time (this could include previous explanations for limitations of our senses, e.g., the earth is round, not flat).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.