TRUTH IS UNIVERSAL
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
I agree with your Premise One , that thoughts exist.
I disagree with your Premise Two that (thoughts exist) necessarily implies that there is a thinker of thoughts.
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: November 25th, 2008, 5:00 pm
- Location: London
Premise One: Belinda have acknowledged and replied to my earlier reasoning. [True premise]Belinda wrote:Pekin, I agree with your Premise One , that thoughts exist.
I disagree with your Premise Two that (thoughts exist) necessarily implies that there is a thinker of thoughts.
Premise Two: Pekin is dreaming that Belinda has replied to his reasoning. [This is false if Premise One is true]
Conclusion One: If premise one is true then Belinda exists.
Conclusion Two: If premise two is true Pekin exists.
Conclusion Three: Whether Belinda replies to my reasoning or I am dreaming her replying it is always the case that thoughts are produced or received by something/someone. [As I have mentioned earlier what is this “something/someone” is the subject of a scientific inquiry.]
One of the important discovery of the scientific inquiry is that: We are only aware of the void, material beings and [the by-product of material beings] the notional beings and nothing else.
Science has also shown that, the function of thinking very much connected to my brain rather than my toes. If I lose my brain [which is a physical entity] I shall not be able to show her logical mistakes.
Thanks
pekin
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm
Since the truth may be shared by many, but determined by one.
It must include random and unconnected events.
So.. today i am incony, but at any moment in time i may be not.
isnt that the preclusion?
Time waits for no one, any event cannot determine its future, only summarize its history..
If A = A now, and one can see that, and determine that A in all probability - A will = A forthwith, even though one may be unaware of events that influence the status of A, as one looks at it.. then A is not stable, it is in change determined by time.
Time determines change. Berlinda or Perkin have no percieved influence on time. Unless that is ones percieved truth.
Can one influence time? yes..
I see that time can be influenced.
How can time be influenced? Science enables the prerogative.. one can influence time with means.
One does as one chooses..
Having the means, is determinable. Though for one it may not be possible, yet.
That for me , relates my position in relation to time. I can see the method, but i may not be able to use it, and at any moment that determination may change, since i cannot influence time, and i am unaware of anything that can, that i can influence.
If i were able to travel as fast as light, i could see the effect on time, i cannot.
Berlinda may be Berlinda now, may be nothing or anyone at the next moment all of which i cannot determine.. i cannot influence time.
I can see history..
History enables me to see method, it has given me the ability to sense how time works.. but still history does not take me beyond what time is right this moment.. time leads me on still, it is ahead of me.
Science history tells me that random events have no precursor. A random event may have no history, may never have occured before.
what one calls Berlinda, after all just a name, itself a random event.. Then Berlinda, and time and event and random are all one.. and can change at any time.
What was, what is, may not be.
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: November 25th, 2008, 5:00 pm
- Location: London
Incony, welcome to the Philosophy Forums and I hope that you will bring valuable contributions to our common zeal - the love of wisdom.Incony wrote:The truth is one's own.
This particular debate is called "Truth is Universal" and contributors are supposed to be focussing on this statement. Diversions are not desirable for obvious reasons.
Having briefly dismissed the “Truth is Universal” by saying that “The truth is one's own”, you seem to have concentrated your comment on “Time” [no doubt this interesting subject could have been debated in somewhere else.]
In philosophy opinions are worthless unless they are defended by reasoning. And in "reasoning", we understand modern logic.
“The truth is one's own” implies subjectivity. Let us see what will happen if we put it into logical structure:
Premise One: Truth is subjective.
Premise Two: According to my atlas the USA is in North America.
Premise Three: My daughter Mary [she is 2] believes the USA is in Asia.
Premise Four: According to John [who is mentally ill] the USA is in Africa.
Conclusion One: If premise one and premise two are correct, then the USA is in North America.
Conclusion Two: If premise one and premise three are correct, then the USA is in Asia.
Conclusion Three: If premise one and premise four are correct, then the USA is in Africa.
Conclusion Four: If premise one, two, three and premise four are correct, then the USA is in North America, in Asia and in Africa.
Incony, Can you see the confusion?
Thanks,
pekin
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: November 25th, 2008, 5:00 pm
- Location: London
Assuming that you are quoting:
Your comment was:Conclusion Four: If premise one, two, three and premise four are correct, then the USA is in North America, in Asia and in Africa.
My reasoning immediately before your comment does not follow your conclusion "the objective reality is sometimes defined as the sum of each individuals perspective" for the reason that: I said IF premises 1, 2. 3 and 4 are correct.Jarle10 wrote:I have seen here that the objective reality is sometimes defined as "the sum of each individuals perspective".
We know that the USA is in the North America and therefore Premise 3 and 4 are FALSE and Premise 2 is the only TRUE PREMISE.
Therefore "The truth is one's own".or "Premise One: Truth is subjective" is FALSE.
In other words, "Truth is Universal".
Thanks
pekin
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm
If.. "definition" depends on time and time is in change then definition is in change.
How can i see that time is in change? i measure it.
So, if "Truth" is universal, and time is integral to the universe, and definition of "Truth" depends on time Then "Truth" is in change.
If.. perception of "Truth" is made by observation, then the observer defines the "Truth" observed.
If another independent observer, at the same time, observes "Truth" but observes another result at that moment in time, then "Truth" is not universal, Why.. because two observers of the same "Truth" have different observations. One "Truth" is not universal.
Why is that possible.? i have described the inclusion of random as an event in time..
I believe that a random event began the universe i am an observer of.
ones "Truth" is ones own.. since my "Truth" is my definition.. dependant on time, in this universe.
My definition of "Truth" can change.. how much time passed before one could accept that the stone was not always the stone....
If the "Truth" is universal, independent of the observer.. then it should be possible to define the absolute unchanging truth..
So.. Pekin.. define the "Truth"...
In effect, the "Truth" is a random event, i believe.
Ones "Truth" is ones own... since even logical determination, inclusive of random ( which the observer defines) includes or should include random, unless of course the observer limits the definition.
limits, predefine inclusion.
The "Truth" is , i think, random..
So let me include random in this topic.
The truth is random, my truth, is my own.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm
Yes, but this is only how we percieve them. So this definition doesn't really give us much. Where would one draw the line for a qualified observer? What differs a subject from an object? I like to define the objective mind-independent reality as a model for our understanding of the world. It can perfectly explain how we observe different things even though there is only one sequence of events that is true independently of the observer. With this model one can properly define an universal truth of the physical world without ambiguity, independently of our ability to verify them.Belinda wrote:Jarle, I agree that it is forever impossible to know whehter or not there is an objective reality apart from the total of perceptions. I would include perceptions of all sorts of entities as well as humans. I don't know about the perceptions perceived by trees and ants, of course because trees don't have nervous systems to perceive with and ants seem to perceive as colonies not as individuals.
This discussion has gone beyond that, however, and is now considering the possibility of universal truth independent of the physical nature. This line must be made very clear as I believe that my discssion with nameless has its roots here. A common misunderstanding of logic, I believe, is that people is assuming its validity is based on that it is obvious, i.e. empirically verified. This is not true. Formal logic does 'assume' some base axioms, but these are not assumptions in the normal sense. They are rather the defining building blocks of what we call a logical system. It doesn't matter whether they apply to practical problems in nature or not.
This is where we can find our universal truths, as our statements made are only preposed to be true if our base axioms are true. So my conclusion would be that we can actually find universal truths, but they does not, in the strictest sense, give us any information (about the physical nature). We can know them a priori as they are analytically deduced truths based on our definition of the terms we consider.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
I think that the Roman Catholic catechism has an item in it to the effect that humans exist to glorify God. Despite many religious people understanding this teleologically, if you stand it on its head you get that humans may be the only species that can seek for absolutes and the only species that tries to understand the creation as a whole.
However other species have perceptions of joy and pain. Personally I would draw the line at every creature that interacts with its environment,however passively, which is every creature.So I would include trees and ants as perceiving subjects.
The difference between subject and object is more problematic, and I suspect that it has a lot to do with a subject's self perception of itself as a self.It seems clear that self consciousness is necessary for maintaining the integrity of the subject, but this biological necessity is a barrier against the dissolution of self.Do meditators and other mystics manage from time to time to dissolve self consciousness? I suggest that if mystics can do so, they may perceive absolutes but if they were in permanent and constant states of meditation they would sooner or later cease to live.So the barrier between subject and object is mentally, emotionally and physically a priori (axiomatic)but metaphysically there is no such barrier.
I am suggesting that objective reality is problematic because one's view slides imperceptibly between the physical and the metaphysical.I too await nameless's comments, and of course, your own comments, Jarle.
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm
Quote:
"The difference between subject and object is more problematic,"
Replies:
No. since if the truth is evident and can be traced
the source can be found and will be evident..
If one cannot trace the "Truth" then that truth is not universal. Why.. because one has no evidence.
Belief.. may be the "Truth" but to prove it one must have evidence that can be replicated by independent source.. else.. what is that "Truth"? a belief or random event.. it has no proof.. no replication by observer..
The question becomes ones definition of "Truth" not the "Truth" and the dependence or independence of the observer, from the universe.
The independence of the observer, excludes influence... since only by such exclusion can the observation be independent.. else the observer is a reaction not an observer,the inclusion of the observer in the event defines the result..
It is why i suggested that Pekin define the "Truth"
If The "Truth" is universal.. then the same "Truth" is evident to any observer, any moment in time, anywhere in this universe and can be replicated and shown at any moment in time. The Observer cannot influence it, else the observer is a reaction and the "Truth" is not universal... the observation is inclusive..without that moment in time, and that observer, the "Truth" may not be what the observer saw.can see,or another observer saw or can see.
If it cannot.. then it is not universal.
If one percieves that a "Truth" is capable of such indication... and one can replicate and demonstrate to any observer, any time, that, that is so, without question, one might have found such a "Truth".
I see no problem in that purpose..
Subject.. is the "Truth"
Object... is the "Truth" any time, any place, any observer, within this universe.
If such a "Truth" exists.. show me.. i wait to see..
I cannot see all time.. i would need to be an exclusive observer, of no consequence or influence to the observation, this universe. The moment i am inside this universe, i influence the result, since anything that occurs within it, and is part of it, has consequence. If the cause has consequence that is exclusive to the result.. ie it can happen without reason, it must be independent.
That would mean that "Truth" is random..since it depends on independent input...If the cause is within the universe, but cannot be traced, it is still random.
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: February 20th, 2009, 6:17 pm
Forever impossible of an objective reality apart from our perceptions?Belinda wrote:Jarle, I agree that it is forever impossible to know whehter or not there is an objective reality apart from the total of perceptions. I would include perceptions of all sorts of entities as well as humans. I don't know about the perceptions perceived by trees and ants, of course because trees don't have nervous systems to perceive with and ants seem to perceive as colonies not as individuals.
What do you call atoms and quantum mechanics, my darling?
Since atoms can be considered the building blocks of the world and universe and atoms are 99.9% empty space, we can IMAGINE what it's like to perceive the world if we were shrunk down to the size of an electron.
It would look like empty dark space with twinklets of lights.
The Night Sky, Belinda.
Look at it.
You have seen God's face.
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
- Location: Here/Now
It is only problematic to those who believe the (obsolete Greek) fantasy that there is a difference.Incony wrote: "The difference between subject and object is more problematic,"
Perceived and perceiver are One, definitionally!
Empiricism is refuted! It is no more than a very locally pragmatic phenomenon.
Your 'science' is obsolete.
QM has the critical update available, when you are ready.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023