phaedrus

John

For an individual, no, because belief is the subjective truth of the individual. Unless, of course, you consider the mind as multiple competing egos for which the truth may be severally different.

Ok....so one can use beliefs and truths

I think you have a similar concept but I deliberately tried to avoid using the word object - it is the cognitive process that results in us positing the existence of "objects".

But we have to first be aware of the existence of an object to be able to identify ?

Can't see the issue here (or there).

Simple, truth is not "in there" waiting to be discovered, it is manufactured "in there" based on the interaction between self and the world

I was trying to understand what you meant by what I had previously referred to as you "process of acceptance

We might "know something" (or things), but we only accept few things as truth

I don't think we have a good enough understanding of the assimilation process - but the disorder to abnormality correlation when combined with succesful treatment results are a start

That is why i had a problem with snapshot/mental state/observer/perspective...etc

Seriously, though, depends on one's definition of thought. My mental picture is that any purposeful activity within the brain is thought, wheeras you seem to tend toward thoughts having to be about object/things.

What the brain does to keep me alive is merely activity that is done without me being "conscious" of it.........only when i get "conscious" or try to "think" about it ....it becomes a "thought"

When something is designed it implies a) a designer and b) a deliberate purpose and set of functions for language rather than the ones we have discovered.

Err...what is the issue? The designer is "human beings" and the purpose is "communication" (and as the quote states a reliable medium for exploring, recording and developing man's knowledge of the external world and of his own nature )

jp

Normal

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pyrrho.htm

Luiseach

So truth is hierarchical?

I see what you're saying about the ideal of having a fine balance between 'expert opinion' and 'generally held belief.' However, such a balance does not exist in reality, does it? Certainly, there are expert opinions about the truth, and then there are general ideas about what is and isn't true, but in neither group is there unanimity. Indeed, it could be argued that ideas about the truth exist in tension with one another...perhaps it would be better to say that each exists in resistance to the other.

Interesting.

So truth, besides existing along a vertical trajectory of value, is simultaneously held in perpetual suspension by the confrontation between expert and inexpert (?) opinions about the truth.

The binarism of truth - 'expert' vs. 'inexpert' - which version is more valid, and why?

Is there any need, though, to anthropomorphise 'reality'? Are not the observers of 'reality' not only crucial, but more importantly essential to its delineation?

To what extent do you think 'reality' is influenced by its interpreters?

Ah...yes, you've answered my questions here ---> The 'truth,' which is partially based on the facts of 'reality,' is to some extent directed by the observers, and is dependant upon certain 'assumptions' about what is and isn't true.

Certainly, 'reality' can be brought in to test assumptions about what is and isn't true, but aren't 'reality' and 'facts' themselves subject to the assumptions of the observer(s) as well?

How real can reality be when it is filtered not only by the senses, but also by 'assumptions'?

John Page

Something - maybe not as concrete as object! Seriously, so long as we (for the purposes of this discussion) attribute to the "object of our perception" no other qualities than it is "something being perceived".
No, manufactured by the mind/brain and retained within self as a result of interaction etc. Waiting to be discovered by "self" part of mind/brain.
I can see rejection of something we know, so that it is consciously no longer true from the point of view of the rejector. My issue is that in rejecting knowledge we must therefore be rejecting the truth (of that knowledge for the perceiver).

We may be differing on this because of my (possibly quirky) view that there is no single central source or point of reference within the "self". We're a bunch of processes that generates multiple points of view that contain contradictions and differences between each other. I figure if this were not so we could not argue with ourselves or objectify (i.e. look at the world from different points of view and compare them). Thus, from my point of view, knowlegde has status of "true" by implication. Consider, if knowledge wasn't "true" in a phenomenal sense, how could we know it?
No, that's when "you" become "aware" of it. All mental activity is thought - but I would accept that the neurological activity that keep the heart beating is somewhat trivial in content.

I'm happy to discuss on the basis that we only know about our thoughts when we consciously perceive them. (You may wish to sleep on this )
That's exactly the issue, humans did not design natural language.

Cheers, john

John Page

"Truth" is however it is organized in the mind of the truth-teller. That same process in humans appears to organize truth in layers that are dependent upon each other for being realized. Thus, the concepts employed fall into a hierarchy.
Catch 22 again - who's to tell?
Yes, exactly as experienced through this thread between System J and System L.
Expert, by definition!! (from experience, which is my inexpert opinion)
Yes - how else can we relate but through our intrinsic human condition? Not sure about the second question. Perhaps, essential to intersubjective agreement as to its delineation through sharing from common points of view. i.e. the second observer has to be enough anthropo to have a meaningful communication.
Clever! Our concept of reality may be this external thing that is unaffected by our internal thoughts or workings but even this model must admit that such a concept is merely the result of our internal thoughts and workings!

I think our concepts of and understanding of what we refer to using the word reality is influenced by its interpreters.
Yes, hence relativism.
Its still real, just that we differ in our opinions as to what it actually is. To escape this dilemma would require some direct knowledge of reality so, IMO, in one's philosophical quest for the "real" truth one must follow the trail of evidence from the boundary between us and the outside world (the primary sense layer) to the mental state that cries "Eureka!".

Cheers, System J

Luiseach

Hiya, System J:

Darn and blast...I thought as much. To explain: I was wondering if I would find out that hierarchies could be avoided somehow, when it came to defining truth. Multiplicity and plurality of truths - more or less equal. But as you point out, and I think you're absolutely correct about this, we tend to organise reality according to a hierarchical structure, which suggests that our brains may be hardwired in such a way, perhaps?

So although the deconstructionist/postmodernist in me is disappointed to have this particular hunch confirmed - that hierarchical structuring is unavoidable when we try to organise our perceptions of 'what is' - at the same time I realise that without this method of scrutinising the differences and 'value' of more or less valid versions of the truth, thought itself as we know it might be impossible. What say you to this idea? Do you agree that our brains are structured hierarchically, and that this structure to some extent influences how we ingest reality?

lmao!

Yes, this idea meshes with your earlier affirmations of the relativist position...and with a strictly naturalistic universe, as well, which makes perfect sense. If there is no 'Author' of reality, no ultimate 'Signified' which underpins (or overarches) the world, then logically it is up to us to develop not only expertise in various areas of 'reality,' but also valuation systems by which we can monitor the quality of 'expert opinions' in relation to the truths we produce about 'reality.'

Yep, the human condition, as you put it, is all we have to work with, and in terms of the 'truth,' it is only 'human' truth(s) we can experience, after all. Good point, John.

lol...we're brains in vats, right enough.

So, we can't help but anthropomorphise reality. We are self-aware systems which develop 'truths' about reality only in relation to ourselves.

Yes...I agree about the search for the 'real' truth being perhaps most promising only when we attempt to follow the evidential path. Absolutely. But I don't think we'll ever know for certain what the 'real' truth may be, simply because we cannot have direct, unmediated, boundary-less access to raw reality. Even the primary sense layer is structured in such a way to filter limited aspects of all the reality there is, so the material we have to work with in building notions of truth is already edited.

For instance, I just watched a documentary about dogs...some scientists say that they have a sense of smell 1000 times stronger than humans...hence, canine reality is far more pungent than our own!

I'm not sure I envy them their superior sense of smell, however...more is not always better.

System L

John Page

Lu:
I'm not so sure exactly what the little fellow in sunglasses is meant to convey but I thought, since I'm in Amerkey and they say "cool" a lot, I'd use him anyway.
So we have the beginnings of a phenomenology for what the truth really is, working from the sense layer inwards to unravel the abstractions knitted for us by our brains. Maybe I'll start a thread on that topic and the hierarchies it this imbues....

Cheers, John

Luiseach

A thread on a phenomenology about truth and the hierarchies involved would be very interesting indeed...!