SexyBachelor wrote:chazwyman wrote: Knowledge can exist in a material sense; data, the written word, visual documentaries, and so on.
Data on a piece of paper, disk, or tape is not knowledge. Knowledge can be recorded to / obtained from markings on a paper or bits on a disk/tape, but these material objects do not "know" anything. Knowledge can only exist in one material sense--whatever part of the brain memories are located in. Again, I think a large part of the problem in this conversation is we aren't agreeing on terms. We can't have a productive discussion if we aren't addressing the same ideas. If you look back at the definition of knowledge/belief, you'll find each is a subjective term. Each requires someone to do the knowing/believing. A paper can't believe. A disk can't know. These things just are. We attribute the quality of knowledge/belief to intelligent living creatures, not inanimate objects.
Oh dear you are not very good at this game are you. We are in the habit of using the word knowledge in this sense all the time, not so truth, and for good reason. But for the purpose if this game I'll accept yout position - for the simple reason that it makes my own much stronger in the case of truth, as the objections you raise apply to truth in abundance. Paper contains knowledge, it cannot contain truth without an observer, thank you for making my pointI you really think that I am claiming that the only real thing is the human mind, then you are clearly confusing my postings with someone else. I think you problem is that you have erroneously positioned the entire world in a position which is wholly dependant on the human mind.
I don't believe this to be true and neither do you; moving on.
If you truly believed that the only thing I thought existed was the human mind, then why are you acknowledging my statement about the materiality of knowledge? You are confused and I can see why you are avoiding this point due to the mistake you have made. Thank you again.Let's take an example. A banana exists. Whether or not it is more or less green or yellow is a judgement of the human mind. The truth of the bananas yellowness is not IN the banana, but it exists in the relationship to concepts in the mind.
You said
"A banana exists," what a perfect example. Whether the banana exists or not does not depend on anyone's mind. Either the banana exists, or it doesn't exist. You may say it exists, I may say it's an illusion, but it either exists or it doesn't--the law of non-contradiction. The light reflecting off the banana is reflecting a certain frequency and amplitude (or ranges of such). It is focused by a lens, captured by a retina, and sent as an electric signal to a portion of the brain. This process in no way is determined by the mind. The mind only receives this data--a picture--after the fact. What the mind calls the picture (red/blue/green/orange/purple banana/apple/pear...) is irrelevant.
The contradiction exists only in your mind. Any truth about the banana requires a conscious mind that is interested in certain aspects of the banana. You seem to be be confused (again) over two issues; the fact that a banana may or may not exist, and whether or not there is anything to say about the banana be it true of false. The existence of a banana may or not be a fact but both its existence and if there is any truth to be said about it requirers a conceiving mind to verify it. The existence of real objects does not involve the existence of truth.
Truth IS existence. Truth IS reality. This is the definition of truth. The existence of real objects
completely depends on the existence of truth/existence/reality. Truth is a word for "that which is real / that which exists."
Oh dear. and I thought that the truth was truth and that reality was reality.
This is the most childish argumentation device on earth. When you are loosing an argument all you do is that the two different things you are arguing about are the same things. Please show me a little more respect. any one can play that game. Truth is thinking, thinking is truth. But on the point in question the actual word "banana" is a fact about the object we call banana and so is any true thing about the banana, all of which exist in the relationship we have about the banana. A banana could exist on Mars, but we would not be able to know about it, or say what is, and what is not true about it, if we did not have that relationship with it, and thus any truth we can say about the banana has to lie in the human mind conceiving that truth. If you want to believe that truth exists in the banana then you can - but only as an act of Faith - Do you believe in God BTW?True = is; False = is not. The truth is what
is.
Were I to be dead, truth of those objects would still rely on the conception of a conscious mind.
Were you to be dead, whether the banana exists or not would not depend on anyone's mind. Either the banana exists or it doesn't exist. It's either the truth that the banana exists or it's the truth that the banana does not exist. A mind can believe that the banana exists or a mind can believe that the banana does not exist, but the banana does not depend on that mind's perception of reality. Bananas are independent of minds. Perceptions of bananas--opinions of bananas--are dependent on minds.
If there were no humans, then no truth could exist about the banana including the word banana, and any fact about the banana would also cease to exist. (This does not effect, not is it relevant to the existence of the banana.) Unless of course you believe in a all perceiving entity. Do you believe in God BTW? A banana on its own unperceived by any person cannot have any truth known about the greenness or yellowness, or size or any other thing that is true or false unless there is an interested conscious mind to conceive of it. The truths of the banana only become apparent when it is perceived. When we use the term objective, it too relies on the conscious mind and is nothing more than a collective subjectivity...Without out language community agreeing upon those terms and contradictions there would be no objective truth at all.
You're right in one sense, we must agree on our axioms to have any discussion. If you believe there is no reality (that I am a figment of your mind) and I believe there is a reality (that you are some real "thing") then we cannot go anywhere with our conversation. You've said you believe there is a reality, that there is a universe. We are positing that there exists a universe--this is our axiom--we assume this to be true (existence = truth). We cannot have a conversation without agreed upon truths. Deduction assumes premises to be true. If you assume no premises than you can't use logic to arrive at a conclusion. We assume that there is a universe--a real physical existence consisting of light, energy, matter, etc.
You are arguing with someone else here (once again).- with all this stuff about not believing in reality. Please desist.
I am right about the nature of objectivity. It is derived from agreement, it does not exist without the perceiving mind. One person's view is subjective, when people agree on a set of criteria and can define and measure factors related to a thing then those factors become objective. This does not mean that such criteria exhaust the truth of the object, indeed sometimes they can offer facts about a thing that are meaningless. For example. Bob says the lemon is sharp, Ted says it is mild, Jane says it is average. They have all made a judgement related to their experience of lemons. The scientist comes along and builds a machine to test a thousand lemons' acidity. The strongest is given a 10 and the weakest is given a zero. He takes Bob, Ted and Jane's lemon and tells them the sharpeness is 6.76. That is the nature of objectivity. It is not closer to THE TRUTH, but limited by the method. The subjective views of Bob is limited by his experience.
In all cases the truth of the sharpness of the lemon is RELATIVE to the subject, as all truth is. So... if this universe really does exists (which we are positing it does), then what I'm saying is that it (the universe) will exist whether or not there are minds around to perceive it.
You are still confused about the topic of the thread. The universe exists. I can say that because I have a relationship to the universe, as do you. We are not arguing about the existence of the universe but about the existence of truth. Please stay on thread. You are saying that the universe will not exist if there are no minds to conceive it-- that truth (existence) depends on minds.
I am saying that a true statement about the universe depends on the universe and a mind to conceive it. If you want to be taken seriously please do not try to put words in my mouth.You are actually suggesting the impossible - the very thing you accuse me of. You claim that objective truth exists outside the human mind to perceive it. Do you also believe in God and any other non verifiable entities? There simply cannot be truth outside a conceiving mind. If you think this is false then please furnish and example.
There cannot be the idea of truth outside of a mind. But if there exists a rock, it will exist whether or not a mind conceives it.
Like I said we are not talking about the existence of things - but about the existence of truth. Ex) No minds conceived Pluto until February 18, 1930. However, Pluto existed well before the year 1930. Pluto existed even before a mind had conceived it.[/quote]
But it was not considered TRUTH that Pluto existed before 1930. Because it was not yet knowledge. Speaking as an historian is is vitally important to realise this position in historical writing. Many histories fail because they employ anachronistic knowledge which conceives history as a thing yet to be, rather than as a thing in its own context. The history of philosophy in particular often makes the mistake of thinking the present into the past. In a very real sense the truth that the earth was the centre of the universe, thought my most until Copernicus and Galileo, is a vital piece of information as to how people conceived of themselves, and how to portray the past as it was and not how is is yet to be. Knowing what the nature of truth is , is vital to this understanding.
To recap. Truth does not exist "out there". It exists in all senses in a relationship between the object of interest and the conceiving entity. In common place terms the human mind creates the truth out of what it can experience and what it can know.
June 10th, 2012, 12:30 pm