About Knowledge, Truth and Falsity

[Juma]

No, you did not. Exploring what I said would consiste of using my concepts and models and see where they led you. You just used your own magical concept of intention on the solar system.

When I think of intention, I think of a mental will. It is pretty much next to impossible to know for sure if intentions exist or not, never mind what agents intend and how they do this.

That is because you look at it the wrong way. You concentrate on how you experience intention. Or rather: on what your brain presents to you as intention.

To better understand meaning and intention you should study and explore how a computerized system would understand for example a handwritten sheet of music which a child as doodled on.

How can it differentiate between the musical notes and the doodling?

 

[ryan]

When I think of intention, I think of a mental will. It is pretty much next to impossible to know for sure if intentions exist or not, never mind what agents intend and how they do this.

That is because you look at it the wrong way. You concentrate on how you experience intention. Or rather: on what your brain presents to you as intention.

To better understand meaning and intention you should study and explore how a computerized system would understand for example a handwritten sheet of music which a child as doodled on.

How can it differentiate between the musical notes and the doodling?

... because of what it is programed to look for.

 

[Juma]

That is because you look at it the wrong way. You concentrate on how you experience intention. Or rather: on what your brain presents to you as intention.

To better understand meaning and intention you should study and explore how a computerized system would understand for example a handwritten sheet of music which a child as doodled on.

How can it differentiate between the musical notes and the doodling?

... because of what it is programed to look for.

You really dont want to know the answer to your question, do you? Cause if you were you would have start wondering how you would program the system to do that. Not just assume that the problem is already solved.

 

[ryan]

... because of what it is programed to look for.

You really dont want to know the answer to your question, do you? Cause if you were you would have start wondering how you would program the system to do that. Not just assume that the problem is already solved.

Which question are you referring to? I don't understand what you are getting at.

 

[Juma]

You really dont want to know the answer to your question, do you? Cause if you were you would have start wondering how you would program the system to do that. Not just assume that the problem is already solved.

Which question are you referring to? I don't understand what you are getting at.

Your op....

 

[Speakpigeon]

Is science really saying that "is true" is just something that usually comes after some statement X that our brains transcribed previously through repetition? So do our brains see X; and then "is true" just follows from always seeing "X is true" in the past?

So what does "it's true" or "it's false" even mean? Is "I don't know" have a different meaning than some other answer?

Is "a lie" simply an object next to some other object with no other meaning?

Or is there some deeper metaphysical connection in the mind?

Science of course would never say anything at all. Only scientists do, sometimes. Of course whatever scientists may say I certainly don't know that it is true. I don't even know even one scientist who would be so bold as to speak about what makes a statement true or even whether a particular statement is true. Maybe some did, like, say, Einstein, but if so that would be in what could only be regarded as philosophical musings about science or whatever. Surely, there is no properly scientific theory purporting to tell us which statements can be or are true of the world. All this makes it difficult to discuss the questions you ask, even if there were not so completely fuzzy.

The question is, as always, first a question about meaning. We (and scientists) normally know what we mean by the word "truth" or what we mean when we say that a particular statement is true. That could arguably be discussed with some profit. But me I don't know what would a scientist mean scientifically with the same. The fuzziness of your questions and the absence of quotes from scientists speaking about the truth and what makes a statement true suggest you don't know what you want to talk about. Neither do I.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Truth is independent of knowledge, and knowledge implies truth. I may not know whether or not the cat is on the mat, but either the cat is on the mat or not. I may not know the truth of the matter, but there is a truth of the matter despite my knowledge or lack thereof.

Well, would you know there would be a cat to begin with?

Because if you don't then it's not true that either the cat is on the mat or not. Maybe there is no fact of the matter as to a cat being on a mat.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Meaning is created by inferring intention. The drawings in the sand means something if we believe us to see an intention with them: that some intelligent being ment to convey information.

That something "is true" has many different meanings. I assume that you refers to wether a specific proposition about reality describes that part of reality well or not.

Here you have the verb "describes". What does it actually mean for some arbitrary part of reality to describe another arbitrary part of reality? What is this seemingly metaphysical link?

Objectively, there isn't anything but causes and effects. How does a certain cause and effect gain this extra significance?

A description (model, representation, theory) need not be true of what is meant to be described. Instead, it may be something you use specifically to decide on what actions to take in relation to what you believe are some aspect or part of the material world. A description which keeps leading you to take apparently good decisions may still not be true of the world, maybe not even a little bit true.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't understand this question at all.

I am guessing here: Since it is empirical evidence in theory it could be repeated and in practicality repeating it would produce a similar outcome but not the same outcome exactly.

So what does "it's true" or "it's false" even mean?

In philosophical terms, I don't know because the question seems kind of vague to me.

Does "truth" lose all meaning when seen scientifically or objectively. For example, if "2 + 2 = 4 is true" is just a process in the brain, then "is true" is just an object that usually comes after the object 2 + 2 = 4. In rare cases, "is false" might come after it, not because someone was wrong, but because that is just what was materially predetermined - just the way the process goes. Are there no intentions or will that transcends matter? If not, then there is no meaning to "truth" and probably nothing else would have meaning either.

The notion of truth is a... notion. As such it does not transcend matter as far as I know and it doesn't need to. All we need is to be able to entertain this notion of truth as if it could be true of something. That being said, truth is a metaphysical notion. We understand what we mean by the word "truth" and we can perhaps understand each other discussing truths but the notion of truth may not necessarily apply to the material world (this tree is fifty meters in height). All we need is to understand what we mean and perhaps believe that it applies to the material world. But does it? Or more to the point is anything we say about the material world true? We don't know and that's why truth is a metaphysical notion. Yet, the notion of truth is meaningful. We just have to mean something for it to be meaningful. I understand that you may be so confused that it no longer means anything to you but it's really up to you and science has nothing to say about that. What science maybe can do is convince you that a particular statement is not true (the sun doesn't rise above the wheat fields). But for the moment I don't think that any scientist tried to define the notion of truth scientifically.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There are two ways to speak of truth. One is language dependent, and the other is language independent. When people say the truth is out there, they're speaking of the latter-the facts of the world. If we look out unto the world an observe something, there is the sense in which we are discovering truths, and when we speak of the truth we see yet speak of it inaccurately, then truthful as we might want to be, the statements made about that which we see are not entirely true--false even.

There are a variety of ways we can accurately speak of something. Saying that a feline is on the mat is just as true as saying a cat is on the mat if there is a cat on the mat, for all cats are felines.

If an aliens perceives something differently than we do, then that which is there is still there independent of any of our perceptions. If an alien speaks of which they see (and does so accurately), then that which they speak is true. There can be a multitude of true statements about a single thing.

I am talking about meaning and what the connection is between two otherwise randomly placed objects in the universe, the reference and a referent.

They might not be randomly placed. It is at least conceivable that the universe may be able to produce true statements about parts of itself through some cognitive organs or organisms. We don't seem to know that the brain is such a truth-producing organ but if it's not that still does not mean no such organ or organism exists. However, it's for the universe (or whatever is truly in charge over here) to "decide" on the issue. It's also an interesting question as to whether humanity could or will ever be able to build a truth-producing machine. It seems we are certainly trying hard. We may already have some very simple devices that are just that but do we really know they are?
EB

 

[fast]

Truth is independent of knowledge, and knowledge implies truth. I may not know whether or not the cat is on the mat, but either the cat is on the mat or not. I may not know the truth of the matter, but there is a truth of the matter despite my knowledge or lack thereof.

Well, would you know there would be a cat to begin with?

Because if you don't then it's not true that either the cat is on the mat or not. Maybe there is no fact of the matter as to a cat being on a mat.
EB

"true" and "not true" are both mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive thereby satisfying typical category grouping requirements (or something like that). If there is no cat on the mat, then a) the fact of the matter is that there is no cat on the mat and b) there is no fact of the matter that there is a cat on the mat. Facts are often times lying in wait of our discovery. Before I cross the sand dune, it's either true there is a dead camel lying in my path or it's not true there is a dead camel lying in my path. I don't need to know anything for that to be true. I don't even need to qualify it by saying "before I cross the sand dune."

 

[fast]

There are two ways to speak of truth. One is language dependent, and the other is language independent. When people say the truth is out there, they're speaking of the latter-the facts of the world. If we look out unto the world an observe something, there is the sense in which we are discovering truths, and when we speak of the truth we see yet speak of it inaccurately, then truthful as we might want to be, the statements made about that which we see are not entirely true--false even.

There are a variety of ways we can accurately speak of something. Saying that a feline is on the mat is just as true as saying a cat is on the mat if there is a cat on the mat, for all cats are felines.

If an aliens perceives something differently than we do, then that which is there is still there independent of any of our perceptions. If an alien speaks of which they see (and does so accurately), then that which they speak is true. There can be a multitude of true statements about a single thing.

I am talking about meaning and what the connection is between two otherwise randomly placed objects in the universe, the reference and a referent.

Meaning is a function of usage. Usage is people dependent, just as sentences are people dependent, but a proposition (at least to me) take the human element out of the equation. There could not have been sentences uttered by people back when there were no people, so how could there have been propositions back then when there were no sentences that express them (or people to express propositions with sentences)? Well, the referent is that which would have been expressed had there been people to express them. So, even if a proposition is what's expressed by a sentence, that doesn't necessitate sentences for there to be propositions. The explanatory definition is quick but weak.

Meaning, however, is beside the point, as meaning and referent are two different things, but there is a similar issue. The referent of a word is the object, but we speak of the referent being the object even when there were no people to use words. In other words, the referent of the word "Earth" was here long before people were around to use the word. The referent of a term is no more word dependent than a proposition is sentence dependent. We're speaking about the object, and we shouldn't let language muck that up, so it's okay to say some things that might make us apprehensive.

Oh, and science does tell us things. It's easy to get bogged down and think words must be talented little fellows to do all the things we say they do, and even when we think we're being smart and turning things topsy turvy to say that it's not words that mean, or words that refer, or words that denote and choose to give credit where credit is due, as it's the people that do things with words, it's an accepted part of language to imbue them as such.

As with words as to fields of study as well. Are we clever when we deny that science teaches us ... When we give credit not to science but to scientists? This reminds me of the insanity of discussing laws of nature

 

[ryan]

Which question are you referring to? I don't understand what you are getting at.

Your op....

Here's an example, what is the mental connection between "5" and "five"? I don't believe, yet, that this can be explained mechanically.

 

[ryan]

I am talking about meaning and what the connection is between two otherwise randomly placed objects in the universe, the reference and a referent.

They might not be randomly placed. It is at least conceivable that the universe may be able to produce true statements about parts of itself through some cognitive organs or organisms. We don't seem to know that the brain is such a truth-producing organ but if it's not that still does not mean no such organ or organism exists. However, it's for the universe (or whatever is truly in charge over here) to "decide" on the issue. It's also an interesting question as to whether humanity could or will ever be able to build a truth-producing machine. It seems we are certainly trying hard. We may already have some very simple devices that are just that but do we really know they are?
EB

I have trouble understanding what the point of your posts are. They don't seem to be addressing my OP even though you are on the right topic. You mention things that are either too far beyond things that I know about or just don't focus in on a point that I can find.

 

[ryan]

I am talking about meaning and what the connection is between two otherwise randomly placed objects in the universe, the reference and a referent.

Meaning is a function of usage. Usage is people dependent, just as sentences are people dependent, but a proposition (at least to me) take the human element out of the equation. There could not have been sentences uttered by people back when there were no people, so how could there have been propositions back then when there were no sentences that express them (or people to express propositions with sentences)? Well, the referent is that which would have been expressed had there been people to express them. So, even if a proposition is what's expressed by a sentence, that doesn't necessitate sentences for there to be propositions. The explanatory definition is quick but weak.

Meaning, however, is beside the point, as meaning and referent are two different things, but there is a similar issue. The referent of a word is the object, but we speak of the referent being the object even when there were no people to use words. In other words, the referent of the word "Earth" was here long before people were around to use the word. The referent of a term is no more word dependent than a proposition is sentence dependent. We're speaking about the object, and we shouldn't let language muck that up, so it's okay to say some things that might make us apprehensive.

Oh, and science does tell us things. It's easy to get bogged down and think words must be talented little fellows to do all the things we say they do, and even when we think we're being smart and turning things topsy turvy to say that it's not words that mean, or words that refer, or words that denote and choose to give credit where credit is due, as it's the people that do things with words, it's an accepted part of language to imbue them as such.

As with words as to fields of study as well. Are we clever when we deny that science teaches us ... When we give credit not to science but to scientists? This reminds me of the insanity of discussing laws of nature

I am interested in the mental connection or the mental significance of the reference to the referent. There is a feeling of familiarity that is separated through space and time. The reference and the referent are connected mechanically like everything else is, so what makes this connection so different?

I guess this just comes down to a mind-body argument with a different example than usual.

 

[fast]

Your op....

Here's an example, what is the mental connection between "5" and "five"? I don't believe, yet, that this can be explained mechanically.

Talking about a numeral isn't the same as talking about a number, just as talking about the word, "cat" isn't the same as talking about a cat. If that helps...

 

[ryan]

Here's an example, what is the mental connection between "5" and "five"? I don't believe, yet, that this can be explained mechanically.

Talking about a numeral isn't the same as talking about a number, just as talking about the word, "cat" isn't the same as talking about a cat. If that helps...

No, that isn't what I am talking about.

 

[Juma]

Your op....

Here's an example, what is the mental connection between "5" and "five"? I don't believe, yet, that this can be explained mechanically.

I already did. Read my previous posts in thus thread and use that mass between your ears.

To cut it short: the "link" is somewhat an illusion. The link is behavior, a time process, not an object.

Assume you walk through a jungle and see some beanches on the ground. It is then a very big evolutionary advantage if you can figure out if the beanches just lie there ny chance or if they are placed there by a reason: if there is an intention and thus tells us that there are other intelligent animals to beware of. Thus identifying intension is definitely selected for by evolution.

Then it is not far to see the ordered twogs as a symbol for that intension. That is: each time you see something that can ve interpreted as the result of intent tgat something works like a symbol for that intent. Say that you learned that thise twigs was used for making fire then bringing twigs together in that fasion makes a it a way to say "make fire". When you have done this several time it becomes a symbol of fire. Thus the link between the symbol and the fire lies in this interaction. Not in some magical mental link.

 

[ryan]

Here's an example, what is the mental connection between "5" and "five"? I don't believe, yet, that this can be explained mechanically.

I already did. Read my previous posts in thus thread and use that mass between your ears.

To cut it short: the "link" is somewhat an illusion. The link is behavior, a time process, not an object.

Assume you walk through a jungle and see some beanches on the ground. It is then a very big evolutionary advantage if you can figure out if the beanches just lie there ny chance or if they are placed there by a reason: if there is an intention and thus tells us that there are other intelligent animals to beware of. Thus identifying intension is definitely selected for by evolution.

Then it is not far to see the ordered twogs as a symbol for that intension. That is: each time you see something that can ve interpreted as the result of intent tgat something works like a symbol for that intent. Say that you learned that thise twigs was used for making fire then bringing twigs together in that fasion makes a it a way to say "make fire". When you have done this several time it becomes a symbol of fire. Thus the link between the symbol and the fire lies in this interaction. Not in some magical mental link.

Think about what a relationship of two objects is. It is not either of the objects. It is something that links them in such a way that they are simultaneously recognized, and their differences are known.

How could a process such as the consciousness also be a singular entity that knows about more than the fundamental particles? This doesn't make sense with a purely causal universe of particles. We should only be one particle at a time and not have these notions of groups of particles.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Well, would you know there would be a cat to begin with?

Because if you don't then it's not true that either the cat is on the mat or not. Maybe there is no fact of the matter as to a cat being on a mat.
EB

"true" and "not true" are both mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive thereby satisfying typical category grouping requirements (or something like that). If there is no cat on the mat, then a) the fact of the matter is that there is no cat on the mat and b) there is no fact of the matter that there is a cat on the mat.

To say meaningfuly that there is or there isn't a cat on the mat you need to assume that there is a mat, and maybe there isn't.

Facts are often times lying in wait of our discovery. Before I cross the sand dune, it's either true there is a dead camel lying in my path or it's not true there is a dead camel lying in my path. I don't need to know anything for that to be true. I don't even need to qualify it by saying "before I cross the sand dune."

Here you assume there is such a thing as your path but maybe there isn't. So to make a meaningful claim you have to assume something which maybe is not true.
EB