What Is Truth?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-01-2014, 06:26 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(03-01-2014 04:06 PM)Free Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 02:15 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I have NEVER talked about the first homo sapiens!

How can you even say that when your response to Chippy was directly related to what he said, which I will again post below:

Quote:LuminonThat's because we keep inventing them by putting old ideas together in a new way - and often giving them a new name.

Chippy clearly said that we have more ideas than what we had when we first evolved and that we have not been merely rearranging ideas that the first homo sapiens had, And then you responded directly to that with the reasoning that we keep inventing them by putting old ideas together in a new way.

You clearly stated that we are re-using/rearranging old ideas from ancient humans in our modern thinking, in direct opposition to what Chippy said. In effect you are saying that we are building off the old ideas of ancient humans as opposed to Chippy's position that we are creating completely new ideas without the aid of ancient thinking.

Are you even aware of what you are actually saying here?

We certainly are.

Drinking Beverage

Don't waste your time and energy. All you will get from Luminon is a dance of equivocation and evasion on a polished floor of utter nonsense.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 06:45 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(03-01-2014 06:26 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Don't waste your time and energy. All you will get from Luminon is a dance of equivocation and evasion on a polished floor of utter nonsense.
I certainly appreciate the recent lull in expletives. So this might be a good opportunity if you stated your case. What's the life, universe & everything about? What is real and how do we know it? Do phenomena exist, before being written about in Scientific American?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 11:45 AM (This post was last modified: 06-01-2014 12:26 PM by Free.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(06-01-2014 06:45 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(03-01-2014 06:26 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Don't waste your time and energy. All you will get from Luminon is a dance of equivocation and evasion on a polished floor of utter nonsense.
I certainly appreciate the recent lull in expletives. So this might be a good opportunity if you stated your case. What's the life, universe & everything about? What is real and how do we know it? Do phenomena exist, before being written about in Scientific American?

The questions you are asking appear to be asked from a philosophical position and can generate numerous responses of which none can be verified. Each and every philosophical question could be responded to differently depending on the view of the responder and therefore no concrete answer could be determined.

From a strictly scientific point of view however, we can determine the most probable truth in regards to those questions.

What is life all about? Simply to live it. There is no universal meaning to it whatsoever. On the grand scale of things, the universe itself is completely indifferent towards life and non life. Neither one has any more significance than the other. Sorry to tell you this, but you and I have no more value in the universe than a single speck of dust.

What is the universe all about? Merely to exist. There's no rhyme or reason to the universe. It just is.

What is reality? Reality is all that which can be determined to exist. It's that simple.

Do phenomena exist? That depends on specifics of which you have not mentioned.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 05:55 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(06-01-2014 11:45 AM)Free Wrote:  The questions you are asking appear to be asked from a philosophical position and can generate numerous responses of which none can be verified. Each and every philosophical question could be responded to differently depending on the view of the responder and therefore no concrete answer could be determined.

From a strictly scientific point of view however, we can determine the most probable truth in regards to those questions.

What is life all about? Simply to live it. There is no universal meaning to it whatsoever. On the grand scale of things, the universe itself is completely indifferent towards life and non life. Neither one has any more significance than the other. Sorry to tell you this, but you and I have no more value in the universe than a single speck of dust.

What is the universe all about? Merely to exist. There's no rhyme or reason to the universe. It just is.

What is reality? Reality is all that which can be determined to exist. It's that simple.

Do phenomena exist? That depends on specifics of which you have not mentioned.
Well, you can not answer philosophical questions with science. Science is concerned with facts, not truths. Facts are true within a given context, and various scientific fields are these contexts. And scientific fields are not the whole reality, only parts of it. So even if you stick with facts, you can not know, if the facts are complete, if you have all the facts about reality.

Yes, reality is what can be determined to exist, that's a truth. Reality is both physical and metaphysical, meaning both the parts we have and haven't discovered yet with science, but will some day. But that means that we can not empirically say if the universe cares about life or not, or if the speck of dust has the same value as me or you. You don't know what is value, what the universe is thinking, and what it's thinking about us. Furthermore, we seem to be that part of universe dedicated to thinking, so we shouldn't suspend this natural function of ours just because the rest of the universe seems different.
Furthermore, you don't define what is existence and what is life. There may be one existence, but that doesn't explain different forms of existence. The same goes for life. What is a life lived right and not right? If the purpose of life is living, whatever living that turns out to be, that's a non-answer, a tautology.

By the way, could you give to me examples of philosophical questions being answered differently, in a mutually necessary contradictory way? So far, the philosophy I learned included refutations to many contrary philosophical attempts, so I really don't know what you mean. Modern philosophy better be read with caveat, because it's infected with relativism or otherwise flawed. A good philosopher must derive values (such as moral) based on universally valid truths and some people just failed in that, even though they're admired as philosophers. So there's a lot of crap around, bad philosophy is perhaps worse than bad science, because it creates totalitarian regimes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 09:08 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(07-01-2014 05:55 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 11:45 AM)Free Wrote:  The questions you are asking appear to be asked from a philosophical position and can generate numerous responses of which none can be verified. Each and every philosophical question could be responded to differently depending on the view of the responder and therefore no concrete answer could be determined.

From a strictly scientific point of view however, we can determine the most probable truth in regards to those questions.

What is life all about? Simply to live it. There is no universal meaning to it whatsoever. On the grand scale of things, the universe itself is completely indifferent towards life and non life. Neither one has any more significance than the other. Sorry to tell you this, but you and I have no more value in the universe than a single speck of dust.

What is the universe all about? Merely to exist. There's no rhyme or reason to the universe. It just is.

What is reality? Reality is all that which can be determined to exist. It's that simple.

Do phenomena exist? That depends on specifics of which you have not mentioned.
Well, you can not answer philosophical questions with science.

The problem is that you are predisposed into thinking that "truth" is a philosophical question. What if it is not? What if truth is, in fact, a question that can only be answered by science?

Once again I will state my position, and hopefully you will dwell on it long enough to realize how deep reaching it actually is:

Truth is all that which can be determined to exist.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 10:02 AM (This post was last modified: 07-01-2014 10:05 AM by Luminon.)
RE: What Is Truth?
(07-01-2014 09:08 AM)Free Wrote:  The problem is that you are predisposed into thinking that "truth" is a philosophical question. What if it is not? What if truth is, in fact, a question that can only be answered by science?
I have already dealt with this. Science itself is not a scientific concept, it's philosophical. There are only particular sciences with their instruments and theories of chemistry, physics, mathematics and so on.
First we need philosophy to prove that there is no other way to accurately perceive reality. Why? Because there are a plenty of relativists and religious absolutists prowling around. And I think you may be a relativist who just believes in science. So I have to tell you, believing in anything, even if it's true, is wrong. If you accept the scientific method, you accept a philosophical truth. All other science, changeable as they are, are derived from this philosophical truth that we can perceive reality adequately, that a real thing must not contradict itself, and so on. It may seem very trivial to you, and it is, until people like you start taking it for granted and then forget about it completely, thinking that all begins and ends with physics and mathematics.

(07-01-2014 09:08 AM)Free Wrote:  Once again I will state my position, and hopefully you will dwell on it long enough to realize how deep reaching it actually is:

Truth is all that which can be determined to exist.
Of course it is deep reaching, because you're mixing together philosophy and science, which you shouldn't, not without knowing about it. You didn't mention me any philosophical problem or definition, so I'm not even sure you know what philosophy is.
I'm not trying to get you to reject science, I'm trying to find out if you really understand what is science. Nobody says science is perfect, but few people here really wonder where are its limitations or what is beyond these limitations and how can we push these limitations better.

Philosophy examines the statements about reality which are general, true, necessary and certain. Something that is not general, for example biology, is not philosophy.
There is no such thing as a general science or timeless science. So science is not reality, it's a working, useful and accurate image of reality, but it's not the whole picture, it's never the whole picture.
I hope you don't, but it seems to me that you feel that what is not currently a part of any science is not working, useful or accurate. I wouldn't recommend that, because then you would limit the practical usage of scientific method (which is really a philosophical concept) to obtain and expand our knowledge.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(07-01-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Of course it is deep reaching, because you're mixing together philosophy and science

Nevermind that science for eons was called "Natural Philosophy"

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-01-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
Science is capable of bootstrapping itself without much of a broader philosophical framework. Just consider the idea that an objective reality exists to be studied a hypothesis, and the whole notion becomes pretty well self-contained. Mathematics is required, but mathematics divorced itself from the work of philosophers millennia ago.

I would suggest that the subset of philosophy that does not fall within the realm of either mathematics or science is at best comparable to the deepness and utility of the realms of mathematics and science. Philosophy may be the father, and we can broadly classify the rest under philosophy, but I would suggest that philosophers who are not mathematicians and are not scientists are lagging behind. They have some catching up to do.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
07-01-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: What Is Truth?
(07-01-2014 10:05 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  
(07-01-2014 10:02 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Of course it is deep reaching, because you're mixing together philosophy and science

Nevermind that science for eons was called "Natural Philosophy"

For eons, yes. But today it's all about the scientific method.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
07-01-2014, 02:13 PM
RE: What Is Truth?
(07-01-2014 10:05 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Nevermind that science for eons was called "Natural Philosophy"
Yes, nothing wrong with that. Philosophy raised science to maturity and science went forth and multiplied. However, science is not the only child of philosophy, far from it.

(07-01-2014 10:41 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Science is capable of bootstrapping itself without much of a broader philosophical framework. Just consider the idea that an objective reality exists to be studied a hypothesis, and the whole notion becomes pretty well self-contained. Mathematics is required, but mathematics divorced itself from the work of philosophers millennia ago.

I would suggest that the subset of philosophy that does not fall within the realm of either mathematics or science is at best comparable to the deepness and utility of the realms of mathematics and science. Philosophy may be the father, and we can broadly classify the rest under philosophy, but I would suggest that philosophers who are not mathematicians and are not scientists are lagging behind. They have some catching up to do.
Yes, the noetical proof and basic logic that science needs from philosophy to really get going can take just a few pages. More if it includes defenses against radical skepticism, sophism, nihilism or relativism. (which is relevant today) Philosophy is about general, true, certain and necessary statements about reality and as such should be used in any human endeavor, it's not just some primitive version of science. It's a proper way of thinking about anything (reality). And we can go very long or far without thinking, but then it will be in a wrong direction or in circles.

To be a good philosopher you don't need to be a mathematician or a scientist. Not at all. What you need to be is to be good at logic and noetics, which are philosophical disciplines that make any kind of science possible. Which is why it helps to be a scientist if all the philosophers are really crappy. We have people in modern ages calling themselves philosophers who did more harm than good in terms of knowledge.
Descartes, Kant, Hume, Locke, Husserl... They are interested in noetical investigation, they build on it, but they devalued and discredited it. Most of all Descartes. They created a post-modern skeptical philosophy, which is a bad philosophy. The former are bad guys, Plato, Aristotle and Socrates are the good guys.

I really need to get this book. I've got copious notes from the lectures, but still, I'd need some of his sources that might be in English for you guys. Hell, it's not like I doubt science, but if you don't know the philosophical source code of scientific method, then you tend to look at science as something transcendent, a black box, as the one, only and the best method to know reality. And that may lead to over-estimating science, which is just an instrument in hands of politicians or whoever controls the funding and thus decides what will or will not be researched or even considered possible or impossible. Science can't make any value judgments, it follows the values we bring with ourselves into research.
Philosophical reality includes truth and goodness (I haven't yet read on beauty yet).
Research questions formulated by evil people will be evil. Philosophers must fight for good and virtues with at least such fervor that evil people fight for evil. You can't say that there is no good or evil, just because science didn't discover them empirically. Or it did, but it took a good, moral, virtuous, philosophically-minded scientist to perform the research. Scientists who just do the lab tests like robots and can't think about science from the outside philosophical perspective are dangerous, because they'll work for anyone (evil rich powerful non-philosophers) and do anything with a rigorous method.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: