John Page

Hi Norm!

Yes, if I'm not experiencing it consciously. I completely agree that the "primary" sensation happens, though. From what I have read about referred pain, I think one has to accept that sensations are transmitted and experienced at a number of different levels.
OK, I accept your point that presupposition can be viewed as the result of previous suppositions - so it is a result rather than an act or process.
:notworthy I like this, you have dewscribed how idealism can arise without taking sides on whether it is "right" or not.
Something, not "truth". Rocks are not made of truth.

Cheers, John

rainbow walking

Is it reasonable to say that the brain performs many functions independant of the cognitive mind?

And if so, is it possible the mind is an independant function of the brain...maybe even the highest function?


Would it be reasonable to speculate that the brain performs many independant functions for the mind, such that some of these functions may also be pre-cognitive functions...sort of like filters or valves that direct information to various semi-cognitive processors?

Could it be that, during circumstances of normal conversation, our brain anticipates and prepares corresponding relevant memories prior to our actual recollection of them based on key words or phrases spoken by those to whom we are conversing with?

Could these pre-cognitive functions be filters that can actually control our choices?

Can we make more than one decision at a time? Can our brain make more than one decision simultaneously, independant of our cognition?

What happens when we know that we know something but can't recall it on demand...forgetfulness? Is this due to a faulty neural pathway or perhaps a malfunctioning pre-cognitive filter...or even an over-loaded or stopped up filter?

What is the precise trigger of convincedness as in making up our mind that something is true? Could it be a process of passing through pre-cognitive filters to the exclusion of all other data? Or in collusion with all other data as the information that entails the least resistance?

Normal

Greetings Mr. Page,

Certainly I agree that thought in the form of deductive and inductive logic is the bully of your conscious mind at this stage of the game. Those sensations that you recognize and actively cognize are inevitably more likely to occupy your conscious mind and in turn are more likely to be transferred to memory. This does not discount the fact that the nerves in your feet are actively sending a message to your brain that they are experiencing sensation no less then your eyes that are reading over these words.

And in this case, the previous suppositions leading to the "reality exists presupposition" are nothing but patterns of sensation.

The rightness of idealism is somewhat irrelevant to the presupposition made about the sensation pattern it arose from; and that presupposition is that the sensation pattern has a truth to its nature.

Disagree, for one corollary of "rocks are not made of truth" is that "rocks are made of lies".

"Rocks are not made of truth" is an internal contradiction to thinking about rocks at all. I assume you are referring to the sensation pattern that tells you a rock exists might be lying to you. The way we construct the nature of a rock in our mind might be all a lie: the electrons, the feel of the rock, etc.. In that sense the rock could indeed be "made of lies" in our minds; but all this is just to assume that the rock itself is not made of lies and it does indeed have a true nature, if unknown to us. You might respond here "What if the rock does not exist at all?". I see the rock, which is a strong indicator of its existence. Then you see the rock, which reinforces my concept that the rock exists. Although this "intersubjective phenomena" has been known to fail before (flat earth), and although we may each have a different deduction about the nature of the rock, we both must admit that the sensation pattern that triggers "rock" in our minds has a definite truth to it's nature, even if it is in it's nature to deceive us, or we contradict ourselves by thinking about rocks at all.

Ciao

rainbow walking

rw: Excellent. So can we say that our sensory perception only delivers data to our brains that something exists and then our brains are then compelled to determine what that something is?

Thus, it isn't the case that our senses lie to us on an existential level, but that the conclusions we draw from that data may be erroneous.

The flat earth analogy is a good example. The conclusion of a flat earth was based on sensory perception from the eye. Later, when the power of the eye was enhanced by mechanical means, this conclusion was thoroughly disproven un-true and it was still the eye that facilitated the discovery of a false conclusion.

In both cases the eye brought data to the brain as a true perception and in both cases the brain arrived at different conclusions.

However, there existed prior to the advent of the telescope, a body of contradictory conclusions to a flat earth, such that someone was not inter/subjectively convinced a flat earth was a viable conclusion before the conclusion was demonstrated to be un-true.

So now we have to wonder if alternate or competing conclusions are necessary to further discovery of truth.

John Page

Hi Norm:
I understand your point, but my use of the word rock was intended to refer to a physical rock - not the intermediate mental concept of a rock via which a physical entity is judged to be a "real" rock or not. Physical rocks are not made of truth or lies.

Cheers, John

Normal

Hey rainbow,

I'd think there necessary would have to be competing views of truth. If everyone preceived the same thing, everyone would preceive the same truth. A lack of challenge against apparent truths would not only not lead to discovery, it would be a pretty boring world

Hey John,

But the question is what is truth, and my claim is truth is the nature of the physical rock that we presuppose by thinking about the rock.

Ciao

phaedrus

John

Well, you would need to set an objective and criteria to be able to compare the relative efficacy of different truth systems. This is the pragamatists view, I believe (not that I fully agree with it).

What do you think about "logcial truth" and truth?

We're going round in circles here - It seems to me that I'm talking about "a belief" as a contingent truth whereas you're talking about "belief" as the act of accepting something as true. Taking the latter meaning of the word, I agree there is a process that can be called belief by which a truth is known.

Not really. When one says - my belief is that there is no pink unicorn

or say - the truth is god doesnt exist

Both are referring to the same (apart from me using pink unicorn and god). Is there a difference betweeen "belief" and "truth", when one says "truth" is manufactured by the individual?

Here are two links, one of which proposes a change to how the axioms of logic are expressed (in preparation for a feedback loop that explains how we get from one representational form to another) Link #1 here , the second offering a new axiom in which new objects are instantiated (invented, made up) within the system under consideration, Link #2 here .

Have seen the first link earlier...

I need to complete work on the Comparison/Detection Theory that complements the above, but do you agree with the assertion I make in the first link above that "A cognitive system must rely upon comparison of represented and representational in order to recognize common identity."?

Does your line mean "our mind identifies an object by comparing it to the internal mental image and classification" ?

No truth is absolute therefore web-of-truths/beliefs are both terms that describe one's framework of reference. Do you agree?

Thats what i meant

....which interplay takes place in your mind therefore your truth is "in there", where there refers to your mind

No it is not "in there", it is manufactured "in there"

Please attempt an answer, I'm trying to understand what you meant by "process of acceptance".

First, i didnt use the phrase "process of acceptance", you used it ...so how can i explain something which you have brought into the discussion?

I was pointing out to you that "knowing something" is not equivalent to "truth" as you mentioned above

Perhaps not fully, but doctors can show you snapshots that corroborate with "normal" observations in explaining various brain disorders. Electrical storms and epilepsy is an example.

Yes, but those snapshots cant be directly connected to a particular stage of the assimilation process?

Now who's not being exact

Seriously, doesnt the statement "the mind does lots of things...including keeping us alive and kicking " suffice to indicate that there is mental activity which is not a "thought"?

but that I don't like the author's suggestion that language was designed.

Then?

jp

John Page

Different systems, different results. Logical truths come from formalized systems for determining truth functional results, human truth comes from an evolved system, the human mind/brain.
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.
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".
Can't see the issue here (or there).
My apologies - I was quoting myself! I was trying to understand what you meant by what I had previously referred to as you "process of acceptance".
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.
Not just the result of an assimilation process? 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.
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.

Cheers, John

Luiseach

Sir John!

LOL! Very good...I like that. Of course, we could view pomo itself as part of the eternal dialectic (rather than as a move away from it completely). A 'post-modern' conceptualisation of the 'truth' would attempt to pluralise it, yes, to show up contradictions, inconsistencies, gaps? Hence, we can see this definition of truth (or truths) as a reaction to monolithic, overarching theories of truth.

I wonder which part of the dialectic pomo is - thesis, antithesis or synthesis....I would guess synthesis.

True enough, but that still doesn't solve the problems arising from the fact that the truth is being controlled by majority rule (consensus)...if the majority claim A is true, and a minority know from evidence that A is actually false, then we have a situation where the official version of the truth is wrong, but acclaimed as right, and the true truth viewed as false. Even if the minority version of the truth does manage to correct the official (false) version (in the spirit of the dialectic), in the meantime the majority are thinking that A is true, whereas it is actually false.

Hmmm...this concerns me, because a given group could endorse a false version of what is considered to be true, and make conclusions from this falsity, base decisions/judgments on the falsity.

Consensus, therefore, by necessity invites critique, testing, contesting...yep, we're left with the dialectic as the most efficient way to build a better version of the 'truth,' although we may never reach the goal of absolute Truth (with a capital 'T').

I completely agree...so truth could be said to be more of a meritocratic (sp?) process, rather than a democratic one. Facts outweigh opinions and fashion in the struggle for understanding.

Objectivity requires unanimity? Hmmm.

Are facts (as the building blocks for truth) as negotiable as is the truth?

John Page

As part of the eternal dieclectic I would agree - pomo is the synthesis of theses and antitheses.
But since truth is always relative, groups that have the best system of determining action will do better. This is why I agree with pragmatists in relation to social versions of "truth". However, one can observe that consensus truths do not always have their intended effect. Societies therefore develop experts who are looked to for the best truth in their fields - religion through medicine to logic etc. I think a good balance between expert opinion and generally held belief (so that neither absolutely rules to roost) is of long term benefit to the group concerned. Why? Because even if we're all equally intelligent, the thought processing capacity of an individual is limited - division of labor and specialization bringing philosophical benefits in the same manner as division of labor in commercial economies.
Interesting. Yes, meritocratic in the context of reality awarding the merits (if you'll pardon the anthropomorphism).
A completely objective truth would require a unanimity of views. (But since systems of truth telling can always differ, its not going to happen).
I think of them as deterministic drivers, so for a given system of truth-telling supplied with the same facts as inputs the truth will always be the same. Change your assumptions then the truth may vary also.

Cheers, John