How Can 'Truth' Be Established?

[JackDaydream]

I certainly would not wish to rule out Eastern philosophy or Plato. The concept of awakening in conjunction or contrast to the brutality of the Occam's Razor make philosophy a knife edge of exploration, with the fine tuning of logic and the search for meaning, understanding and even transformation of consciousness.

The razor says that Western philosophy is probably wrong, Eastern dualistic philosophies are also probably wrong, and Eastern nondualism is probably correct. So the razor says that the Eastern kind of "awakening" is real, part of the real deal philosophy, probably.

So a form of "mysticism" turns out to be the most rational philosophy, probably. That's a bit hilarious I think.

And then after we did all that, spent a few years going to the awakening process, reinterpreting all philosophy, all existence etc., that's where philosophy really takes off imo. Because the biggest question is yet to be addressed using speculative philosophy, using the razor.

An interesting answer; does it mean that all philosophy has an an aspect of fantasy? Some people continue to live on the basis of mundane reality. Others may reach for the heights in terms of 'awakening' and understanding. The mystics point to the limits of words in trying to understand the unknown. In some ways, it is amazing that philosophy is able to understand as much as it does, especially causality. There is the methodology of empirical science, as well as the logic of conceptual thinking. It is interesting to see how the razor can cut through the knots of speculative philosophy in a way which has a basis in empiricism and rationality, in order to address the idea of 'truth' in a way which goes beyond psychological needs for understanding.

Wouldn't call it fantasy. It's quite the opposite actually: everyone in the Western world is living a misguided fantasy about the nature of themselves. They all have the same fantasy so they don't notice.

I guess we could also call it an often useful, often romantic, often debilitating mass psychosis.

Awakening is when this fantasy breaks apart, and people realize their true nature (or lack thereof). And that's the first time when they see existence as it actually is.

When you suggest that everyone is living a fantasy and that is probably about how we construct stories about our lives. These stories or mythic narratives may be the way we choose to frame what happens and who we are, and read significance into aspects. It can become distorted and more grand at times, especially with the ego's wish to triumph or it can fall apart due to low mood or harsh aspects of 'truth'. It may be that psychosis, with its delusions and hallucinatory aspects is this process of autobiographical narratives gone haywire.

[Atla]

...looks like you can't use the probabilistic thinking of the right hemisphere at all.

Oh. I try not to allow myself to get too immersed in probabilistic thinking, as it has long been an enthusiasm of mine. Whenever I see a binary statement - - "it's either black or it's white!" - it calls out to me: "what about maybe?" - or in this case, "what about grey?" Bayesian stuff is interesting too. Some claim it helps to justify things that have always been considered unjustifiable...

The drawback with probabilities is when we try to apply probability and statistics when we have no justification at all for even guessing at a particular probability. We assume it's 'likely' (or unlikely) because we believe it is, usually without any justification at all. <shrug> <baffled>

The razor is correct well over 50% of the time so is justified

[Atla]

The razor says that Western philosophy is probably wrong, Eastern dualistic philosophies are also probably wrong, and Eastern nondualism is probably correct. So the razor says that the Eastern kind of "awakening" is real, part of the real deal philosophy, probably.

So a form of "mysticism" turns out to be the most rational philosophy, probably. That's a bit hilarious I think.

And then after we did all that, spent a few years going to the awakening process, reinterpreting all philosophy, all existence etc., that's where philosophy really takes off imo. Because the biggest question is yet to be addressed using speculative philosophy, using the razor.

An interesting answer; does it mean that all philosophy has an an aspect of fantasy? Some people continue to live on the basis of mundane reality. Others may reach for the heights in terms of 'awakening' and understanding. The mystics point to the limits of words in trying to understand the unknown. In some ways, it is amazing that philosophy is able to understand as much as it does, especially causality. There is the methodology of empirical science, as well as the logic of conceptual thinking. It is interesting to see how the razor can cut through the knots of speculative philosophy in a way which has a basis in empiricism and rationality, in order to address the idea of 'truth' in a way which goes beyond psychological needs for understanding.

Wouldn't call it fantasy. It's quite the opposite actually: everyone in the Western world is living a misguided fantasy about the nature of themselves. They all have the same fantasy so they don't notice.

I guess we could also call it an often useful, often romantic, often debilitating mass psychosis.

Awakening is when this fantasy breaks apart, and people realize their true nature (or lack thereof). And that's the first time when they see existence as it actually is.

When you suggest that everyone is living a fantasy and that is probably about how we construct stories about our lives. These stories or mythic narratives may be the way we choose to frame what happens and who we are, and read significance into aspects. It can become distorted and more grand at times, especially with the ego's wish to triumph or it can fall apart due to low mood or harsh aspects of 'truth'. It may be that psychosis, with its delusions and hallucinatory aspects is this process of autobiographical narratives gone haywire.

I think you leave too many possibilities too open about everything, which is much worse then relative certainty about most things. We need to apply probabilities to everything.

For example the awakening is a very specific realization, but Westerners don't know on a conscious level what it is about, but they sense that there is something to it. So they are intrigued by Eastern philosophy, and by unusual insights claimed by people who experienced unusual states of mind, and intrigued by schizophrenics, and even by the Matrix movies etc

[Pattern-chaser]

...looks like you can't use the probabilistic thinking of the right hemisphere at all.

Oh. I try not to allow myself to get too immersed in probabilistic thinking, as it has long been an enthusiasm of mine. Whenever I see a binary statement - - "it's either black or it's white!" - it calls out to me: "what about maybe?" - or in this case, "what about grey?" Bayesian stuff is interesting too. Some claim it helps to justify things that have always been considered unjustifiable...

The drawback with probabilities is when we try to apply probability and statistics when we have no justification at all for even guessing at a particular probability. We assume it's 'likely' (or unlikely) because we believe it is, usually without any justification at all. <shrug> <baffled>

The razor is correct well over 50% of the time so is justified

Yes, that's the only standard to which a rule of thumb can be held. But I wonder if there is evidence that it is correct "well over 50% of the time"? I think not, although I also think the Razor is right often enough to be useful, but this is just my feeling; I have not verified it. Have you? Let's remember how many 'old wives tales' were used for centuries before being debunked.

We believe and hope that the Razor is "correct well over 50% of the time", but I don't think it has been investigated, and it has not been proven to work. If it had, it would no longer be a rule of thumb, it would be more authoritative than that. But it isn't, as far as I can determine. You?

However, it is also true that there have been more than one case and/or scientific explanation in which the most accurate explanation appeared to be the more complex one. As a result, some scholars, philosophers, novelists, etc. have come up with “anti-razors” to balance out Occam’s Razor. Among them are:

Hickam’s Dictum — “Patients can have as many diseases as they damn well please”. This anti-razor is used to warn physicians that it is quite possible for a patient to have multiple diseases at the same time, and that symptoms need not be ascribed to a single disease process.

Chatton’s Anti-Razor — A contemporary of Occam, he said, “If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on.” This was to caution against making simplicity into more than a helpful principle. The caution here is to not be afraid to look at more complex explanations. Simplicity is not a requirement, just the best method.

Law Against Miserliness — “Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy” and “It is vain to do with fewer what requires more.” — Karl Menger. This is a caution, particularly for scientists, against trying to aggregate too much data under a particular principle, otherwise you can lose explanatory power.

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” — Sherlock Holmes. This is a caution that while you can use methods such as Occam’s Razor in order to lower the number of possible explanations, you must never so use the Razor that it prevents you from positing what is “true.”

In other words, the anti-razors are most often warnings to scientists, mathematicians, and secularists, against the dangers of over-simplifying the data to the point where they actually misunderstand what is the actual explanation of the data or the events.

Above quote taken from here.

[Atla]

...looks like you can't use the probabilistic thinking of the right hemisphere at all.

Oh. I try not to allow myself to get too immersed in probabilistic thinking, as it has long been an enthusiasm of mine. Whenever I see a binary statement - - "it's either black or it's white!" - it calls out to me: "what about maybe?" - or in this case, "what about grey?" Bayesian stuff is interesting too. Some claim it helps to justify things that have always been considered unjustifiable...

The drawback with probabilities is when we try to apply probability and statistics when we have no justification at all for even guessing at a particular probability. We assume it's 'likely' (or unlikely) because we believe it is, usually without any justification at all. <shrug> <baffled>

The razor is correct well over 50% of the time so is justified

Yes, that's the only standard to which a rule of thumb can be held. But I wonder if there is evidence that it is correct "well over 50% of the time"? I think not, although I also think the Razor is right often enough to be useful, but this is just my feeling; I have not verified it. Have you? Let's remember how many 'old wives tales' were used for centuries before being debunked.

We believe and hope that the Razor is "correct well over 50% of the time", but I don't think it has been investigated, and it has not been proven to work. If it had, it would no longer be a rule of thumb, it would be more authoritative than that. But it isn't, as far as I can determine. You?

However, it is also true that there have been more than one case and/or scientific explanation in which the most accurate explanation appeared to be the more complex one. As a result, some scholars, philosophers, novelists, etc. have come up with “anti-razors” to balance out Occam’s Razor. Among them are:

Hickam’s Dictum — “Patients can have as many diseases as they damn well please”. This anti-razor is used to warn physicians that it is quite possible for a patient to have multiple diseases at the same time, and that symptoms need not be ascribed to a single disease process.

Chatton’s Anti-Razor — A contemporary of Occam, he said, “If three things are not enough to verify an affirmative proposition about things, a fourth must be added, and so on.” This was to caution against making simplicity into more than a helpful principle. The caution here is to not be afraid to look at more complex explanations. Simplicity is not a requirement, just the best method.

Law Against Miserliness — “Entities must not be reduced to the point of inadequacy” and “It is vain to do with fewer what requires more.” — Karl Menger. This is a caution, particularly for scientists, against trying to aggregate too much data under a particular principle, otherwise you can lose explanatory power.

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” — Sherlock Holmes. This is a caution that while you can use methods such as Occam’s Razor in order to lower the number of possible explanations, you must never so use the Razor that it prevents you from positing what is “true.”

In other words, the anti-razors are most often warnings to scientists, mathematicians, and secularists, against the dangers of over-simplifying the data to the point where they actually misunderstand what is the actual explanation of the data or the events.

Above quote taken from here.

Again, everything in everyday life and science and everything, confirms that the razor is usually correct.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think you leave too many possibilities too open about everything, which is much worse than relative certainty about most things.

Possibilities that cannot be chased into a valid and justified conclusion must be set aside to await further information (evidence). That is what logic dictates. So leaving "too many possibilities too open about everything" is logical. More: it is the only logically-acceptable path available to follow.

To have confidence in things based on guesswork surely cannot be better than acting logically, and withholding judgement when there is no valid way to reach any conclusion? I suggest that "relative certainty" — which has nothing at all to do with certainty — is the choice that is to be avoided wherever possible, as it is clearly and obviously inferior to a logical approach.

To reach a conclusion based on nothing but guesswork is illogical.

We need to apply probabilities to everything.

Why?

[Pattern-chaser]

Again, everything in everyday life and science and everything, confirms that the razor is usually correct.

OK: Please cite where and how this has been confirmed.

[Atla]

I think you leave too many possibilities too open about everything, which is much worse than relative certainty about most things.

Possibilities that cannot be chased into a valid and justified conclusion must be set aside to await further information (evidence). That is what logic dictates. So leaving "too many possibilities too open about everything" is logical. More: it is the only logically-acceptable path available to follow.

To have confidence in things based on guesswork surely cannot be better than acting logically, and withholding judgement when there is no valid way to reach any conclusion? I suggest that "relative certainty" — which has nothing at all to do with certainty — is the choice that is to be avoided wherever possible, as it is clearly and obviously inferior to a logical approach.

To reach a conclusion based on nothing but guesswork is illogical.

We need to apply probabilities to everything.

Why?

There are an infinite amount of logical explanations for anything. Nor is the world necessary logical.

[Atla]

Again, everything in everyday life and science and everything, confirms that the razor is usually correct.

OK: Please cite where and how this has been confirmed.

LOL please cite how it was not confirmed.

[JackDaydream]

An interesting answer; does it mean that all philosophy has an an aspect of fantasy? Some people continue to live on the basis of mundane reality. Others may reach for the heights in terms of 'awakening' and understanding. The mystics point to the limits of words in trying to understand the unknown. In some ways, it is amazing that philosophy is able to understand as much as it does, especially causality. There is the methodology of empirical science, as well as the logic of conceptual thinking. It is interesting to see how the razor can cut through the knots of speculative philosophy in a way which has a basis in empiricism and rationality, in order to address the idea of 'truth' in a way which goes beyond psychological needs for understanding.

Wouldn't call it fantasy. It's quite the opposite actually: everyone in the Western world is living a misguided fantasy about the nature of themselves. They all have the same fantasy so they don't notice.

I guess we could also call it an often useful, often romantic, often debilitating mass psychosis.

Awakening is when this fantasy breaks apart, and people realize their true nature (or lack thereof). And that's the first time when they see existence as it actually is.

When you suggest that everyone is living a fantasy and that is probably about how we construct stories about our lives. These stories or mythic narratives may be the way we choose to frame what happens and who we are, and read significance into aspects. It can become distorted and more grand at times, especially with the ego's wish to triumph or it can fall apart due to low mood or harsh aspects of 'truth'. It may be that psychosis, with its delusions and hallucinatory aspects is this process of autobiographical narratives gone haywire.

I think you leave too many possibilities too open about everything, which is much worse then relative certainty about most things. We need to apply probabilities to everything.

For example the awakening is a very specific realization, but Westerners don't know on a conscious level what it is about, but they sense that there is something to it. So they are intrigued by Eastern philosophy, and by unusual insights claimed by people who experienced unusual states of mind, and intrigued by schizophrenics, and even by the Matrix movies etc

The more I try to think what is likely to happen in life, the more something else other than the various ones which I imagined, which is why I find Taleb's book, 'The Black Swan'. Of course, it is useful to think of the various outcomes of specific actions and events and, be prepared for the worst. It may say something about the nature of causality, when thinking of event scenarios, and even how human intentionality comes in, possibly the role of the subconscious. What the Eastern thinkers do speak of is the law of karma, which is the law of cause and effect, or, 'As you sow, so shall you reap'. Sometimes this is taken to mean some kind of inherent retributive law like 'reward and punishment', but it may be rather different from that, but more complex than many Westerners, especially materialist determinists, understand it to be.

It does seem that people are fascinated by those who see life differently, including Eastern mystics, who seek or lead lives based on the idea of enlightenment. The schizophrenics and those with other mental illnesses may be revered in some ways, like William Blake and Vincent Van Gogh. The book which I find fascinating is Colin Wilson's, 'The Outsider', in which he looks at creative outsiders and he speaks of how they may see 'truth' in an unusual way. Nevertheless, there is a lot of stigma towards those with mental health difficulties and so much fear, which may be partly generated by the way the media portray stereotypes of those who viewed as dangerous, who are probably only a small proportion.

[Atla]

We use the razor for everything all the time in life and call the result consensus reality. I'm genuinely tired of arguing with people who don't see this so I'll stop here.

[JackDaydream]

We use the razor for everything all the time in life and call the result consensus reality. I'm genuinely tired of arguing with people who don't see this so I'll stop here.

It may be that people use some kind of similar basis to the razor on some level, even if they have not heard of the philosophical concept. It may be like some way of filtering what is important or eliminating 'noise' within information. Probably most people can think of people; who in telling stories go into so much irrelevant details and how people switch off and get impatient whilst listening. Michael Polyani's idea of tacit knowledge may be related because he speaks of a gestalt approach of seeing. It may also be intuitive because the subconscious may know what it needs to know and the art of judgment is often necessary on a moment to moment basis, especially as daily life involves making instant decisions in some circumstances.

[Atla]

We use the razor for everything all the time in life and call the result consensus reality. I'm genuinely tired of arguing with people who don't see this so I'll stop here.

It may be that people use some kind of similar basis to the razor on some level, even if they have not heard of the philosophical concept. It may be like some way of filtering what is important or eliminating 'noise' within information. Probably most people can think of people; who in telling stories go into so much irrelevant details and how people switch off and get impatient whilst listening. Michael Polyani's idea of tacit knowledge may be related because he speaks of a gestalt approach of seeing. It may also be intuitive because the subconscious may know what it needs to know and the art of judgment is often necessary on a moment to moment basis, especially as daily life involves making instant decisions in some circumstances.

Without the razor I couldn't even pick my nose, there would be infinite interpretations of what is happening and infinite courses of action to take.

The razor is there, ALWAYS in human thinking. It's so universal that most people don't notice it

[JackDaydream]

We use the razor for everything all the time in life and call the result consensus reality. I'm genuinely tired of arguing with people who don't see this so I'll stop here.

It may be that people use some kind of similar basis to the razor on some level, even if they have not heard of the philosophical concept. It may be like some way of filtering what is important or eliminating 'noise' within information. Probably most people can think of people; who in telling stories go into so much irrelevant details and how people switch off and get impatient whilst listening. Michael Polyani's idea of tacit knowledge may be related because he speaks of a gestalt approach of seeing. It may also be intuitive because the subconscious may know what it needs to know and the art of judgment is often necessary on a moment to moment basis, especially as daily life involves making instant decisions in some circumstances.

Without the razor I couldn't even pick my nose, there would be infinite interpretations of what is happening and infinite courses of action to take.

The razor is there, ALWAYS in human thinking. It's so universal that most people don't notice it

One idea which I have come across in psychiatry is that in psychotic illness one aspect of the problem people experience is of not being able to focus and filter out the irrelevant details or patterns.

Within thinking, there is a stream of thoughts and some may be more significant and some as hardly worth following. This also applies to images which come into consciousness because it could be a situation of being overwhelmed and following pointless patterns as opposed to developing clarity of perception and thought. The 'voices' which people actually HEAR may be about being overwhelmed and led by the stray intrusions of thought, although chemical imbalances of the neurotransmitters may come into it. Generally, though, the ability to filter out thoughts may be like some kind of biological razor device in mental processes, like some kind of compass for grasping tacit truth.