Does absolute truth exist?

[Juma]

Truth is the limes (scrutiny ->oo) of "good enough"

 

[Speakpigeon]

No.

Obviously we can only have beliefs about the truth of sentences that are about the material world but what we mean by "truth" is something independent of our beliefs or any judgement call we want to make.



Quite impressive: understanding -> meaning -> proposition > reality! How many layers do you need to articulate your ideas? You need to use some razor here.
EB

The idea is after Philosophy in the Flesh -- Lakoff and Johnson

Is that verbatim though? I doubt it although many intellectuals also use sloppy wording and vocabulary. But it seems reasonable to assume that your post is a confused randition of their text.
EB

 

[ontological_realist]

What is the difference between truth and absolute truth?

 

[ontological_realist]

Yes, it does.

Either absolute truth exists, in which case it is an absolute truth to say that there is absolute truth or absolute truth does not exist, in which case it's an absolute truth to say that it does not.

I agree.

 

[none]

What is the difference between truth and absolute truth?

got this concept from several sources, mostly it is derived to support a notion that there must be a god
something along the lines: absolute truth doesn't exist is an absolute truth?
no, is the answer but it doesn't consider that in a practical context absolute truth does not exist.
now it is up to whomever to prove that absolute truth exists not that it doesn't.
in the OP I say that absolute truth is a truth that is true in all contexts.
I point out it's contextual and that context can vary not supporting a given truth
1+1=2 isn't true in a context were 1+1=carrot for example therefore 1+1=2 isn't true in all contexts...

 

[Kharakov]

What is the difference between truth and absolute truth?

Depends on how you define truth and absolute truth.

 

[George S]

What is the difference between truth and absolute truth?

got this concept from several sources, mostly it is derived to support a notion that there must be a god
something along the lines: absolute truth doesn't exist is an absolute truth?
no, is the answer but it doesn't consider that in a practical context absolute truth does not exist.
now it is up to whomever to prove that absolute truth exists not that it doesn't.
in the OP I say that absolute truth is a truth that is true in all contexts.
I point out it's contextual and that context can vary not supporting a given truth
1+1=2 isn't true in a context were 1+1=carrot for example therefore 1+1=2 isn't true in all contexts...

1+1 = 1 ... for raindrops sometimes 1 raindrop plus 1 raindrop yields 1 larger raindrop, for example.*

For those theologians who claim that truth cannot exist without a god: If there were no god it would be absolutely true that there is no god. If there were a god it would be absolutely true that there is a god. In either case some proposition would be absolutely true. Hence absolute truth does not originate with any god.

__
* clouds, ideas and philosophies as well.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yeah, well, me I still don't understand what an absolute truth would be that a truth couldn't be.

Truth is conceived as a relation between what we say and reality. What we say is conceived as a one time event that belongs to the past and cannot be changed. Reality being conceived as fixed, the relation of what we say to reality is therefore conceived as fixed too. So, whatever meaningful thing we say is conceived as either true or false. We can change our views as to whether something we've said is true or false but if we change we say that we were wrong the first time round, that we were wrong to think that what we had said was true because it never was. So truth is conceived as absolute. It is conceived of as a relation which is independent of what we think, which is why we have to say that we were wrong whenever we change our views. So the expression "absolute truth" does not add anything to the notion of truth.
EB

 

[George S]

Yeah, well, me I still don't understand what an absolute truth would be that a truth couldn't be.

Truth is conceived as a relation between what we say and reality. What we say is conceived as a one time event that belongs to the past and cannot be changed. Reality being conceived as fixed, the relation of what we say to reality is therefore conceived as fixed too. So, whatever meaningful thing we say is conceived as either true or false. We can change our views as to whether something we've said is true or false but if we change we say that we were wrong the first time round, that we were wrong to think that what we had said was true because it never was. So truth is conceived as absolute. It is conceived of as a relation which is independent of what we think, which is why we have to say that we were wrong whenever we change our views. So the expression "absolute truth" does not add anything to the notion of truth.
EB

Exactly.

What is believed to be true can, indeed, change. There are few absolutes. One that everyone I have ever interacted with seems to be able to agree with is that we both exist, at least right now. The alternative is solipsism.* I am and thou art. Is this "absolutely true" or merely "true?" There seems to be no distinction.

__
*
The true (tm) solipsist has no one to disagree with. He merely thinks his thoughts, the only thoughts there are.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Exactly.

Excellent!

What is believed to be true can, indeed, change.

Agreed.

There are few absolutes.

Not really. There are a lot of truths. For every belief, true or false, there is a truth that could potentially be articulated, although we seldom bother.

One that everyone I have ever interacted with seems to be able to agree with is that we both exist, at least right now.

We have interacted before I don't accept this as necessarily true. Maybe it's true, maybe not, I just don't know and I don't think you do either. Rather, we believe there are other people, especially those we seem to be interacting with on a regular basis.

The alternative is solipsism.*.
* The true (tm) solipsist has no one to disagree with. He merely thinks his thoughts, the only thoughts there are

Being solipsist requires changing one's model of how the world works. Assessing solipsism requires to adopt it fully as hypothesis. But here you fail to do that. You fail to put aside your own beliefs and therefore fail to apply solipsism in a consistent manner. The true solipsist is perfectly capable of disagreeing with himself.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

The alternative is solipsism.*.
* The true (tm) solipsist has no one to disagree with. He merely thinks his thoughts, the only thoughts there are

Being solipsist requires changing one's model of how the world works. Assessing solipsism requires to adopt it fully as hypothesis. But here you fail to do that. You fail to put aside your own beliefs and therefore fail to apply solipsism in a consistent manner. The true solipsist is perfectly capable of disagreeing with himself.
EB

Disagreeing with oneself is not disagreeing with another they are merely the solipsist's thoughts. So how does your answer change George S.'s statement?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Being solipsist requires changing one's model of how the world works. Assessing solipsism requires to adopt it fully as hypothesis. But here you fail to do that. You fail to put aside your own beliefs and therefore fail to apply solipsism in a consistent manner. The true solipsist is perfectly capable of disagreeing with himself.
EB

Disagreeing with oneself is not disagreeing with another they are merely the solipsist's thoughts. So how does your answer change George S.'s statement?

George S. didn't use the word "another". He asserted that "The true solipsist has no one to disagree with". Since the solipsist can in fact disagree with himself he has someone to disagree with, therefore George S.'s statement was false.

You should have made the point instead that it's not possible to disagree with oneself. I would have agreed. But part of the solipsist can disagree with another part of himself, the part that seems to represent other people that in fact don't exist outside the solipsist's mind.
EB

 

[George S]

Disagreeing with oneself is not disagreeing with another they are merely the solipsist's thoughts. So how does your answer change George S.'s statement?

George S. didn't use the word "another". He asserted that "The true solipsist has no one to disagree with". Since the solipsist can in fact disagree with himself he has someone to disagree with, therefore George S.'s statement was false.

You should have made the point instead that it's not possible to disagree with oneself. I would have agreed. But part of the solipsist can disagree with another part of himself, the part that seems to represent other people that in fact don't exist outside the solipsist's mind.
EB

I suppose a solipsist might suffer from DID, as well.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I don't believe Solipsism to be true but maybe I'm delusional about the existence of other people. Maybe we are all delusional about it.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Perhaps this is a good point to introduce Maelzel and man a machine both use an intervening variable, machine, to depose dualism which is the only way one can legitimately pose a case for absolute truth.

See  [B]Julien Offray de La Mettrie[/B] and  Maelzel's Chess Player

Really guys all we have is what we have and that's here for just a short time in a very limited locale so absolute anything is out of the conversation.

 

[Speakpigeon]

If a machine was all there was to us then of course we would be incapable of producing any truth, no even by chance. But we're not just machines, if we are that at all.

It's funny because some scientists are worried that hard sciences rely now to much on the use of computers and that it becomes more and more difficult to understand what computers are doing in the first place let alone do some actual science. Same for the brain project in Europe where they are building this very large brain-simulating machine without any paradigm or theory as to how a brain might really work. Blind date. Let's see how lucky a machine can be.

Of course, no machine, as we think of them today, will ever explain subjective experience. Machines will have to be something else as what they are today to explain subjective experience. And then, yes, why not.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Of course, no machine, as we think of them today, will ever explain subjective experience. Machines will have to be something else as what they are today to explain subjective experience. And then, yes, why not.
EB

Of course (hand waves) no (mere) machine as Speakpigeon thinks of them will ever explain subjective experience.

I'm going to try mightily to pry your fingers off that never lever.

I have successfully modeled a sensory neuron with analog computer elements about 50 years ago as symposium project. 15 years later I modeled a pilot executing a landing in an F-14. Of course I had help. 5 years further on we (giving credit because I'm just the manager) we modeled a pilot communicating with command during simulated combat.

It gets better. 5 years later I used a Global Operator Modeling System in preliminary certification of a fifth generation F-18. We had already convinced pilots that the simulator was one of them for fun and giggles. Among the last things I did before I retired was to participate in adding humor, confusion, complex task learning, and doubt into human performance simulators being used in certifying the F-22.

You can check out what military human simulators can do now if you just check the web 20 years after my last interaction with such tools.. I've given you enough cues where you can find some I think.


The point is some of us are not as confident as your hand about never explaining subjective experience.

 

[George S]

Of course, no machine, as we think of them today, will ever explain subjective experience. Machines will have to be something else as what they are today to explain subjective experience. And then, yes, why not.
EB

Of course (hand waves) no (mere) machine as Speakpigeon thinks of them will ever explain subjective experience.

I'm going to try mightily to pry your fingers off that never lever.

I have successfully modeled a sensory neuron with analog computer elements about 50 years ago as symposium project. 15 years later I modeled a pilot executing a landing in an F-14. Of course I had help. 5 years further on we (giving credit because I'm just the manager) we modeled a pilot communicating with command during simulated combat.

It gets better. 5 years later I used a Global Operator Modeling System in preliminary certification of a fifth generation F-18. We had already convinced pilots that the simulator was one of them for fun and giggles. Among the last things I did before I retired was to participate in adding humor, confusion, complex task learning, and doubt into human performance simulators being used in certifying the F-22.

You can check out what military human simulators can do now if you just check the web 20 years after my last interaction with such tools.. I've given you enough cues where you can find some I think.


The point is some of us are not as confident as your hand about never explaining subjective experience.

This is about subjective experience, right? It is important to the question "Does absolute truth exist?" because of the rewording of Descartes to "I have subjective experience, therefore at least "I," if no other exist in the absolute sense." I have a sense of being in control of at least some of my actions. (These thoughts of mine appear on the screen as I keyboard (or is it still 'type') these words [correcting, as needed, as I go.]) But, somehow, there is a self I call me who thinks the thoughts of having experience.

What would it be like to be a soulless biochemical robot. Obedient entirely to physical, natural law. Having an on-board Turing machine to process visual input -- generating qualia as output for other on-board computers. Having an on-board logic machine to process things like "If that's true then I'm a Monkey's uncle!" and draw the proper conclusions. Storage to remember the past and use that as input in the logic machine. Having the ability to program a new subroutine -- this process is called learning something.
I wonder what it would be like to be a robot who, if asked, "Do you have subjective experience?" would answer "Yes." I suspect we know.

 

[George S]

BTW, here are some fine absolute truths: If A then A. If A then ~(~A). [proving a negative] (A v ~A) is true. ... for every proposition A that is either true or false.

 

[fromderinside]

BTW, here are some fine absolute truths: If A then A. If A then ~(~A). [proving a negative] (A v ~A) is true. ... for every proposition A that is either true or false.

Is A still A after then, or, is it something or somewhere else?