Does absolute truth exist?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Beware of the Dogma

With no progress in about 3000 years .... Time to update.

Perfectionism leads to paralysis. That is the ulterior motive for misleading us into inaction by tricking us into believing the question is something we should be concerned about.

 

[fromderinside]

Just trying to get around that little problem with extending one's knowing to others. If one can't its useless when what one knows isn't what is reality.

Your turn to dance.

I understand that's what you are doing but it's not because you are doing it that what we say about it is true (just as when I said "I understand" I definitely don't know if I really do).

Believing you know, or you understand, or that what you do is useful, puts you in the same category as most philosophers, i.e. the category of people who think that whatever they think they are doing is actually what they are doing. Nothing to be ashamed about. It's only natural, I guess. And I broadly do the same but a little bit of reality check in this respect can’t be bad.
EB

Whatever I believe about the data is my problem. Objective data should be able to lead everyone to the same understanding. If not there is either a with the data or with the one who examines the data. Data problems are easy to resolve. Collect more data. After all all one asks for in understanding is an agreement on process. If one cannot accept process, its happened several times in my research career that an observer just could not accept the observer process, then one must either change the process or find another observer.

Presuming, for the moment, one gets universal agreement among those who follow the process one can get establishment of temporary truth.

Not much of a victory that. Since it is the nature of the process to increase the data and the utility of the data.

Following data and doing are quite different. What one does is dependent on ones individual process. The data remains constant for individuals who see it at a time and place so the dependency is only on everyone accepting the process used for processing the data.

Since it is self evident that rationality fails to increase utility and science continues to lead to more utilty I find your argument of personal truth, and knowing based on rational reasoning by the individual to be inferior, probably wrong entirely, and of little use in either knowing or understanding. Since knowing is so tightly coupled with rational reasoning I choose to keep the multi-individual based notion of understanding through a common repeatable and observable process as preferred and useful and reject the notion that individuals can know.

 

[George S]

I understand that's what you are doing but it's not because you are doing it that what we say about it is true (just as when I said "I understand" I definitely don't know if I really do).

Believing you know, or you understand, or that what you do is useful, puts you in the same category as most philosophers, i.e. the category of people who think that whatever they think they are doing is actually what they are doing. Nothing to be ashamed about. It's only natural, I guess. And I broadly do the same but a little bit of reality check in this respect can’t be bad.
EB

Whatever I believe about the data is my problem.

What a person believes to be true is a judgement call. A number of judgement calls, really. What is the probability of fraud or outright lie in the data. . . .

Objective data should be able to lead everyone to the same understanding. If not there is either a with the data or with the one who examines the data. Data problems are easy to resolve. Collect more data. After all all one asks for in understanding is an agreement on process. If one cannot accept process, its happened several times in my research career that an observer just could not accept the observer process, then one must either change the process or find another observer.

Presuming, for the moment, one gets universal agreement among those who follow the process one can get establishment of temporary truth.

Not much of a victory that. Since it is the nature of the process to increase the data and the utility of the data.

Following data and doing are quite different. What one does is dependent on ones individual process. The data remains constant for individuals who see it at a time and place so the dependency is only on everyone accepting the process used for processing the data.

Since it is self evident that rationality fails to increase utility and science continues to lead to more utilty I find your argument of personal truth, and knowing based on rational reasoning by the individual to be inferior, probably wrong entirely, and of little use in either knowing or understanding. Since knowing is so tightly coupled with rational reasoning I choose to keep the multi-individual based notion of understanding through a common repeatable and observable process as preferred and useful and reject the notion that individuals can know.

 

[Speakpigeon]

re you

Whatever I believe about the data is my problem. Objective data should be able to lead everyone to the same understanding. If not there is either a with the data or with the one who examines the data. Data problems are easy to resolve. Collect more data. After all all one asks for in understanding is an agreement on process. If one cannot accept process, its happened several times in my research career that an observer just could not accept the observer process, then one must either change the process or find another observer.

Presuming, for the moment, one gets universal agreement among those who follow the process one can get establishment of temporary truth.

There is only "temporary truce".

Did you mispell?

"Temporary truth" is an oximoron.

That put's you in the category of people who think they can oximoron and mispell their way through arguments.

I guess you get out what you put it: irrationality.

Not much of a victory that. Since it is the nature of the process to increase the data and the utility of the data.

Following data and doing are quite different. What one does is dependent on ones individual process. The data remains constant for individuals who see it at a time and place so the dependency is only on everyone accepting the process used for processing the data.

Since it is self evident that rationality fails to increase utility and science continues to lead to more utilty I find your argument of personal truth, <snip>

I never had any argument about "personal truth", another oximoron of yours. When I am in pain, the fact that I am in pain is just true, not "personally true". Sure, other people don't know this fact but that's irrelevant. It would be like saying that the moon simply doesn't exist when you're not looking at it. Pretty idiotic, hey?

Since <snip> knowing based on rational reasoning by the individual to be inferior, probably wrong entirely<snip>

Knowing based on rational reasoning?! Where did you get that!? It's just sooo moronic. Are you somehow pleased with yourself spouting such idiocies?
EB

 

[George S]

Is there absolute truth?
If Y no problem. If N contradiction. So . . . maybe.

 

[fromderinside]

If something has never been evidenced assume something doesn't exist until disproved. Can't make an affirmative case for what isn't there upon which to make a case.

 

[Juma]

When I am in pain, the fact that I am in pain is just true, not "personally true".

-Who are you?
-Its not a fact, it is just a feeling.
-How do you it is really "pain" and not "nausea"?
- exactly what is true?

 

[Speakpigeon]

When I am in pain, the fact that I am in pain is just true, not "personally true".

-Who are you?

It's irrelevant. Clue: the "I" is repeated in the antecedent and in the consequent.

-Its not a fact, it is just a feeling.

And you think that feeling is not a fact? That I am in pain is not a fact? Interesting.

It's even better than that, it's a known fact.

-How do you it is really "pain" and not "nausea"?

It doesn't matter that I call it pain or nausea. I know it.

- exactly what is true?

I meant "When I am in pain, that I know the fact that I am in pain is just true."
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

If something has never been evidenced assume something doesn't exist until disproved. Can't make an affirmative case for what isn't there upon which to make a case.

Evidence is always indirect except for mental states such as pain. You won't get any better than that, ever. If you can't get to understand that it will be like Neanderthal couldn't understand other people have feelings too.

You are already more than 300 years late on Descartes. You could try to catch up, like, now?
EB

 

[Juma]

-Who are you?

It's irrelevant. Clue: the "I" is repeated in the antecedent and in the consequent.

"When A is in pain A knows that A is in pain."
1) at lowest level: A doesnt "know" that A is in pain, A is simply in pain.
2) at next level: A observes that A feels pain.

It is not sure in what way that the observing A should be seen as the same A that have pain.

-Its not a fact, it is just a feeling.

And you think that feeling is not a fact? That I am in pain is not a fact? Interesting.

It's even better than that, it's a known fact.

That something is in pain is a fact. That you know pain is not a fact.

-How do you it is really "pain" and not "nausea"?

It doesn't matter that I call it pain or nausea. I know it.

To you know that you are in pain requires that you know when not in pain. Otherwise "to be in pain is meaningless"

- exactly what is true?

I meant "When I am in pain, that I know the fact that I am in pain is just true."
EB

I'm not at all sure that everyone that are in pain are capable of experiencing Anything but pain. Much less being in a dtate observing that they are in pain.

 

[Speakpigeon]

It's irrelevant. Clue: the "I" is repeated in the antecedent and in the consequent.

"When A is in pain A knows that A is in pain."
1) at lowest level: A doesnt "know" that A is in pain, A is simply in pain.
2) at next level: A observes that A feels pain.

It is not sure in what way that the observing A should be seen as the same A that have pain.

Second clue, it's not at all like "if A then A".

You don't get it do you?

Ok, there you are, it's an empirical truth.

-Its not a fact, it is just a feeling.

And you think that feeling is not a fact? That I am in pain is not a fact? Interesting.

It's even better than that, it's a known fact.

That something is in pain is a fact. That you know pain is not a fact.

Of course it is. You may not know it but so what. Something is a fact even if nobody knows it is.

Feel privileged that I'm willing to share my knowledge of this fact with you.

-How do you it is really "pain" and not "nausea"?

It doesn't matter that I call it pain or nausea. I know it.

To you know that you are in pain requires that you know when not in pain. Otherwise "to be in pain is meaning-less"

That's a different issue and I'm not going to explain everything to you. Of course it all depends on what we mean by "meaning" and I seem to remember we disagree on that so it would be a derail. So, it's meaningless to you but not to me. Which is what matters since it is me who knows he is in pain when he is in pain.

- exactly what is true?

I meant "When I am in pain, that I know the fact that I am in pain is just true."
EB

I'm not at all sure that everyone that are in pain are capable of experiencing Anything but pain. Much less being in a dtate observing that they are in pain.

Sure not everybody. I never said otherwise. It's for my readers to assess for themselves if what I say is true of them too. Never said it necessarily was. I was talking about myself. And I couldn't care less about the fact not everybody is like me. What matters is that when I'm in pain I know pain and I know I'm in pain. Whether this is meaningless to you or not is irrelevant. If it's true it's true and a fact is a fact. And that I know a fact is itself a fact. Of course it is.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Evidence is always indirect except for mental states such as pain. You won't get any better than that, ever. If you can't get to understand that it will be like Neanderthal couldn't understand other people have feelings too.

....

EB

Most of the time others know your pain before you're consciously aware of it. Every body in the room knew you felt pain before you apparently felt it is a sound relationship for you to consider when pronouncing such things as your direct connection to your pain.

Pain has long been studied as a template for adaptive social fitness.

 

[Juma]

"When A is in pain A knows that A is in pain."
1) at lowest level: A doesnt "know" that A is in pain, A is simply in pain.
2) at next level: A observes that A feels pain.

It is not sure in what way that the observing A should be seen as the same A that have pain.

Second clue, it's not at all like "if A then A".

You don't get it do you?

Ok, there you are, it's an empirical truth.

-Its not a fact, it is just a feeling.

And you think that feeling is not a fact? That I am in pain is not a fact? Interesting.

It's even better than that, it's a known fact.

That something is in pain is a fact. That you know pain is not a fact.

Of course it is. You may not know it but so what. Something is a fact even if nobody knows it is.

Feel privileged that I'm willing to share my knowledge of this fact with you.

-How do you it is really "pain" and not "nausea"?

It doesn't matter that I call it pain or nausea. I know it.

To you know that you are in pain requires that you know when not in pain. Otherwise "to be in pain is meaning-less"

That's a different issue and I'm not going to explain everything to you. Of course it all depends on what we mean by "meaning" and I seem to remember we disagree on that so it would be a derail. So, it's meaningless to you but not to me. Which is what matters since it is me who knows he is in pain when he is in pain.

- exactly what is true?

I meant "When I am in pain, that I know the fact that I am in pain is just true."
EB

I'm not at all sure that everyone that are in pain are capable of experiencing Anything but pain. Much less being in a dtate observing that they are in pain.

Sure not everybody. I never said otherwise. It's for my readers to assess for themselves if what I say is true of them too. Never said it necessarily was. I was talking about myself. And I couldn't care less about the fact not everybody is like me. What matters is that when I'm in pain I know pain and I know I'm in pain. Whether this is meaningless to you or not is irrelevant. If it's true it's true and a fact is a fact. And that I know a fact is itself a fact. Of course it is.
EB

Introspection is not empiri, it is not fact,

End of story.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Evidence is always indirect except for mental states such as pain. You won't get any better than that, ever. If you can't get to understand that it will be like Neanderthal couldn't understand other people have feelings too.

....

EB

Most of the time others know your pain before you're consciously aware of it. Every body in the room knew you felt pain before you apparently felt it is a sound relationship for you to consider when pronouncing such things as your direct connection to your pain.

Pain has long been studied as a template for adaptive social fitness.

Sure. Objective pain, if you like. Not subjective pain. I was talking about subjective pain. I couldn't care less about objective pain.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Introspection is not empiri, it is not fact,

End of story.

Ignoramus.
EB

 

[Juma]

Most of the time others know your pain before you're consciously aware of it. Every body in the room knew you felt pain before you apparently felt it is a sound relationship for you to consider when pronouncing such things as your direct connection to your pain.

Pain has long been studied as a template for adaptive social fitness.

Sure. Objective pain, if you like. Not subjective pain. I was talking about subjective pain. I couldn't care less about objective pain.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Introspection is not empiri, it is not fact,

End of story.

Ignoramus.
EB

Not at all. But you should kniw better than take what the brain creates at face value.

 

[fromderinside]

Sure. Objective pain, if you like. Not subjective pain. I was talking about subjective pain. I couldn't care less about objective pain.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Introspection is not empiri, it is not fact,

End of story.

Ignoramus.
EB

Not at all. But you should kniw better than take what the brain creates at face value.

I just find anyone taking anything from a mind as if anyone were anything but a brain, muscles, juices, twitches, and bones. How does one take from what is a part or vica versa?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Sure. Objective pain, if you like. Not subjective pain. I was talking about subjective pain. I couldn't care less about objective pain.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Introspection is not empiri, it is not fact,

End of story.

Ignoramus.
EB

Not at all. But you should kniw better than take what the brain creates at face value.

Very, very, very stupid remark! I'm on record for saying, indeed claiming, over and over again that I don't know whether there is a material world or even anything like it (external world). And there you go, suggesting I take what my brain produce at face value! Hey, I don't accept I even know I have a brain, how could I take what it produces at face value?! Do you ever pause to try and understand what people say?! It seems not.

Also, your remark implies that you assume the existence of something that would be your brain and that therefore you are doing precisely that which you wrongly reproach me of doing! Fantastic. Really, really fantastic!

I believe you really don't understand the basic ideas in play. You seem to have a blind spot and I guess there's nothing I could say that could make you understand. Human nature, probably, since it seems you're not the only one. I'm currently reading a book by a French scientist looking at the philosophical context of QM who says that a majority of scientists don't understand the philosophical concepts implied by their own interpretation of QM. That's the misery of the human condition.

It should be said that the ideas I present here are mostly what Descartes and Kant, among others, already presented centuries ago. So there is really no excuse for you and others here to keep misunderstanding these ideas. You have to have somehow a blind spot.
Though of course I don't actually know that.
EB

 

[Juma]

Sure. Objective pain, if you like. Not subjective pain. I was talking about subjective pain. I couldn't care less about objective pain.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Introspection is not empiri, it is not fact,

End of story.

Ignoramus.
EB

Not at all. But you should kniw better than take what the brain creates at face value.

Very, very, very stupid remark! I'm on record for saying, indeed claiming, over and over again that I don't know whether there is a material world or even anything like it (external world). And there you go, suggesting I take what my brain produce at face value! Hey, I don't accept I even know I have a brain, how could I take what it produces at face value?! Do you ever pause to try and understand what people say?! It seems not.

Also, your remark implies that you assume the existence of something that would be your brain and that therefore you are doing precisely that which you wrongly reproach me of doing! Fantastic. Really, really fantastic!

I believe you really don't understand the basic ideas in play. You seem to have a blind spot and I guess there's nothing I could say that could make you understand. Human nature, probably, since it seems you're not the only one. I'm currently reading a book by a French scientist looking at the philosophical context of QM who says that a majority of scientists don't understand the philosophical concepts implied by their own interpretation of QM. That's the misery of the human condition.

It should be said that the ideas I present here are mostly what Descartes and Kant, among others, already presented centuries ago. So there is really no excuse for you and others here to keep misunderstanding these ideas. You have to have somehow a blind spot.
Though of course I don't actually know that.
EB

All you know is that something is experiencing.

That is all there is left of descartes cogito.

We know that there is a material world.

We know that there are brains

We know that this brain has evolved over billions of years.

We know that such a brain helps us experience the material world.

We know that everything we experience is created by the brain. Most of it are proper representations of the material world.


This is what we know.

 

[Speakpigeon]

All you know is that something is experiencing.

That is all there is left of descartes cogito.

We know that there is a material world.

We know that there are brains

We know that this brain has evolved over billions of years.

We know that such a brain helps us experience the material world.

We know that everything we experience is created by the brain. Most of it are proper representations of the material world.


This is what we know.

So you don't know what "know" means to begin with.

As I said, ignoramus.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

All you know is that something is experiencing.

That is all there is left of descartes cogito.

We know that there is a material world.

We know that there are brains

We know that this brain has evolved over billions of years.

We know that such a brain helps us experience the material world.

We know that everything we experience is created by the brain. Most of it are proper representations of the material world.


This is what we know.

So you don't know what "know" means to begin with.

As I said, ignoramus.
EB

know? I'm sure I am talking about understanding ....... I guess you still don't know that.