John Page

Sophie,

Inter-solipsism if you please!

sophie

John, I used the term almost-perfect because as we agreed we can never be 100% outside the system, thus we can never perfectly encode objectively. It is almost perfect by way of reasoning.

John, you finished that post with : Me? My shot is that there is a relationship between the reliability of a truth and the extent to which it has been tested. Outside the scope of that testing we are into the realm of conjecture by imagination.

My reply is the quest for truth cannot always be repeatedly experienced because some experiences may be fleeting or only come once in a lifetime. What can be repeateadly tested however is the system which is used to deliver the truth. When a system has been deemed true for retrieving the truth, then those one time inputs, and the truth associated with them can be derived with a greater degree of confidence.

Take for example, the ear. The ear can be trained to tell truths about sounds. This is a C, that is D, that chord is an F minor, ect. If a fast car flashes by and honks its horn, the trained ear, which cannot be used to repeat the experience,, can say with a subtle amount of certainity, the car horn is a D note.

What can John say about the objective truth of the D note car horn?

John Page

Sophie:

A few surprises for me here!
No quite sure what you mean by the "delivery system" - that seems to imply that the truth is formed outside the delivery system - in which case it cannot be dependent upon the delivery system.
Primacy of reason? Appeal to common sense? What are these systems of telling the truth?
...back to the test for a "perfect" system.
OK, so truth/falsity is arrived at by comparing things and declaring a mismatch. What criteria/processes are the mismatches based on?
Disagree. Truth is a mental entity and thus "exists" but is not "out there" like the rustling of the leaves.
Agree. A process may be latent.
I don't understand - what do you propose it means for something to be universally true?

Cheers, John

John Page

The objective truth in this case is one that is shared by all systems that have common notions of "car" "D note" and "horn". Intersubjective agreement of such an "objective" truth could be reached through exposure to and confirmation of the phenomenon, its classification and testability.
Yes, one can set standards for truth. Who does the deeming, the subject of the test or the observer?

Cheers, John

sophie

John, you seemed to understand from the "delivery system" - that seems to imply that the truth is formed outside the delivery system - in which case it cannot be dependent upon the delivery system.

Here I am solely referring to extrinsic truth. This is the experience, or the set of states which were actually traversed which denotes the experience. We wish to acertain the truth of all such experiences.

Truth is the mirroring of the experience, If we knew the experience, we would have the truth. Why is truth dependent on the delivery system? This is because the experience is extrinsic and the information of experience must be 'delivered' to the individual, where it can be processed and the truth sorted out.
The delivery system includes the reconstruction of the original experience into a representational experience, and the use of the representational experience to deduce truths about the experience.

The truth is dependent upon the delivery system, because if the delivery system is flawed in its representational construct and its instantiationable content, the accuracy of the original experience is greatlly diminished. It is this accuracy of the representational content we use to support our conclusions which we term truth concerning experiences.

In cronological order, we have experiences, then the representation of the experience, then the processing of the representational experience, finally the truth is derived.

Truth at this point is actual representative clauses concerning the original experience which it obtained through the mirroring of the experience bonded with a few processing details. No delivery system - no truth.

yguy

Not so. No delivery system, no perception of truth.

As humans with the capacity for denial, we may sabotage that delivery system at will; nevertheless, rose colored glasses don't make the sun any different.

John Page

Are you saying truth is intrinsic? Sophie made clear she solely refering to extrinsic truth.

The sun is the "sun" because we perceive it that way, not because it has a name label and list of key attributes pinned to it with very strong duct tape. The name label and key attributes are in the mind.

Cheers, John

John Page

Sophie:

Thanks, I think I understand correctly now that "delivery system" is more an information delivery system rather than truth delivery system (of which I had assumed the latter).
As different from "accuracy"?
I have no problem with this.
I differ somewhat here. The representational experience is produced as "true" a priori (although I agree cognition may be flawed and we can later come to doubt our initial truths - thus we build our reservoir of understanding).
Clauses?

Cheers, John

yguy

I take extrinsic to mean external, or objective. Now that I think about it, that doesn't quite fit with this:

"Here I am solely referring to extrinsic truth. This is the experience, or the set of states which were actually traversed which denotes the experience."
However, I don't quite see how the experiencing of truth can possibly be extrinsic.

The sun is what it is regardless of our perception of it. We can't make the sun go away either by closing our eyes or killing ourselves, the wisdom of Bokonon notwithstanding.

So is the perception.

John Page

I think there may be a mix up in terms - that object A is intrinsically F means F is embedded in A. That object A is extrinsically F means that F is attributed to A by the observer.

Here's a link that may explain it better than I.
from plato stanford

Cheers, John