Experiments with Truth

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10861
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 12:36 am

PostSat Sep 25, 2010 9:15 pm » by Lowsix


You haven't been Experimenting with the truth at all.
You've been experimenting on perceptions...
because that is all you have access to.
Image
warløckmitbladderinfection wrote:blasphemous new gehenna inhabitant makes god sad...

Conspirator
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:14 am

PostSat Sep 25, 2010 9:21 pm » by Hackjames


lowsix wrote:You haven't been Experimenting with the truth at all.
You've been experimenting on perceptions...
because that is all you have access to.


That's a good point. I'd argue that "objective truth" is based on mutually-corroborated perceptions of the reality we share and it's properties. Ultimately though, you're right, which serves to illustrate how difficult the problem is without confusing terminology.

However, this isn't an experiment with perceptions either. Experiments require a few things, this thread doesn't really meet that criteria.
This is your world. You're the creator.
-Bob Motherfucking Ross

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:40 pm

PostSat Sep 25, 2010 10:17 pm » by Sheeple


It was very kind of you hack and low to point out what this thread is missing and is not about.
Why don't you post some philosophical groundwork for starters?
A discussion about perception and truth would be valuable as well.
:flop:

Conspirator
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:14 am

PostSat Sep 25, 2010 10:52 pm » by Hackjames


sheeple wrote:It was very kind of you hack and low to point out what this thread is missing and is not about.
Why don't you post some philosophical groundwork for starters?
A discussion about perception and truth would be valuable as well.
:flop:


Well, there's this for starters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_philosophy

It's not complete by any means but there's enough there to get you going. I'd recommend epistemology as an area you might like to focus on, that's a real suggestion (not sarcasm or bait).

I'm not claiming authority on the subject when I say there's no experimentation going on, that's just terminology. I understand the gist of why it's been stated that way, I'm just trying to clarify things. No disrespect is intended, and if I sound pompous then call me out on it and let's have a discussion.

Perception is a broad term, as is truth. They're linked in many ways, and I think we've already been discussing them both. ;]
This is your world. You're the creator.
-Bob Motherfucking Ross

Initiate
Posts: 904
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 5:07 pm

PostSun Sep 26, 2010 12:13 am » by Harryjackson


You cant experiment with TRUTH.

You can play games with fear of it.

Thats ALL.

Conspirator
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:14 am

PostSun Sep 26, 2010 2:23 am » by Hackjames


harryjackson wrote:You cant experiment with TRUTH.

You can play games with fear of it.

Thats ALL.


That barely makes any sense at all. Can you expand your thoughts?
This is your world. You're the creator.
-Bob Motherfucking Ross

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:40 pm

PostSun Sep 26, 2010 3:27 am » by Sheeple


hackjames wrote:
harryjackson wrote:You cant experiment with TRUTH.

You can play games with fear of it.

Thats ALL.


That barely makes any sense at all. Can you expand your thoughts?
Ah, Harry, you nailed it. Isn't it what happens in departments of philosophy all around the world? Hack, this was a rhetorical question, I do not expect an answer for it.

After studying philosophy and epistemology from scholarly peer-reviewed sources as reliable as Wikipedia is, one may find that is no near the truth than before.

Everyone has his or her small discoveries about truth and realizes that the answer often comes from intuition rather than assembling a logic puzzle (Poincare raised the awareness about this matter a century ago). This does not make sense indeed but expanding the thoughts in this direction was driving many brilliant mathematicians to the edge of reason and beyond, apparently.

Conspirator
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:14 am

PostSun Sep 26, 2010 4:11 am » by Hackjames


sheeple wrote:Ah, Harry, you nailed it. Isn't it what happens in departments of philosophy all around the world? Hack, this was a rhetorical question, I do not expect an answer for it.

After studying philosophy and epistemology from scholarly peer-reviewed sources as reliable as Wikipedia is, one may find that is no near the truth than before.

Everyone has his or her small discoveries about truth and realizes that the answer often comes from intuition rather than assembling a logic puzzle (Poincare raised the awareness about this matter a century ago). This does not make sense indeed but expanding the thoughts in this direction was driving many brilliant mathematicians to the edge of reason and beyond, apparently.


What was nailed exactly?

I for one have only responded once to your initial premise, the rest have been specific to individual replies. I would however say that if you're not looking for an answer (rhetorical question or not) then you're not likely to find one. That sounds rather spooky so I'll quickly move on.

Perhaps I've been a bit too...what, materialistic? Something that doesn't take the mystery of things into account? If so, that's fair. There is such a thing as paradox, even by the standards I've been advocating for. There are limits to human understanding.

That said, the material in the wiki article didn't come from the wiki itself, though I suspect you knew that already. Perhaps it's all futile though, as you seem to suggest. I disagree.

Philosophy is the basis for most (if not all) modern technology, for a start. It's been instrumental in several political revolutions (with varied outcomes) and we could obviously go on. Acknowledging that it has limits doesn't mean that it has no value as a pursuit.

I realize I'm putting words in your mouth here to some degree, I'm just trying to see where you're coming from and respond. I'm getting the notion that you're rather fatalistic about the idea of objective truth, which I can't understand...even given your points on intuition and the rest. Just because philosophers debate philosophy and have been doing so for a long, long time without reaching a general consensus (a subjective truth) doesn't mean that we should through our hands in the air and go back to listening to our inner voices exclusively. I'm guessing you don't advocate that either.

Also, on mathematics...math is language used in an attempt to represent the physical world. I think it's fairly understandable why many mathematicians have been driven nearly (or all the way) insane when trying to reconcile mathematical tangents with reality. It's a useful tool, certainly. But the idea of 1 doesn't exist in nature, only in the collective consciousness of humans. Math can be usefully predictive, but you don't need to look further than classical thermodynamics to find that useful, predictive systems can still be conceptually limited and incapable of modeling the greater reality we all swim in.

Anyway, thanks for responding. I enjoy the discussion, despite my inability to sympathize with your position so far. ;]
This is your world. You're the creator.
-Bob Motherfucking Ross

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 849
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:40 pm

PostSun Sep 26, 2010 11:18 am » by Sheeple


Harry nailed it because it is a public knowledge that what many philosophers are trying to do is to preserve the status quo by publishing articles that are based on "publish or perish" agenda. It is convenient to claim an intellectual status and have a stable income. Well, they are not as bright as Plato but insist to have a good life and when bored, use hallucinogens for inspiration.

We should not ignore the mainstream philosophical achievements though. However, I would not fully rely on a philosopher to determine for me what is a proper experiment with truth. Why? Because the philosophers are a minority among the global population and what they consider as objective or subjective is approved among themselves only and given as a guideline to the rest. Compartmentalization is a major problem because what enters the textbooks as objective knowledge in a given field is considered and approved by a very limited number of individuals. Most writings are 'safe' articles which rely solely on a combination of previous ones to assemble a different combination of known things.
The process of discovery is a different matter as one reaches for the unknown.

There is also a gap between "knowing what" and "knowing how" which is increasing with the widespread tunnel vision approach in dealing with both real and virtual phenomena. The purpose of objective truth is to provide certainty for the individual to survive, interact with the others and have a safe environment. Most of us "know what" but do not "know how" and the agenda is to make the majority dependent on the system.

Does not matter whether it fits within one's systematic approach or not, everything that person does, consciously or subconsciously, is an experiment. One may not call it a truth experiment if terminology is so crucial to maintain a professional status, that's fine, but it will continue happening nonetheless.

Conspirator
Posts: 1729
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:14 am

PostMon Sep 27, 2010 3:46 am » by Hackjames


sheeple wrote:Harry nailed it because it is a public knowledge that what many philosophers are trying to do is to preserve the status quo by publishing articles that are based on "publish or perish" agenda. It is convenient to claim an intellectual status and have a stable income. Well, they are not as bright as Plato but insist to have a good life and when bored, use hallucinogens for inspiration.

We should not ignore the mainstream philosophical achievements though. However, I would not fully rely on a philosopher to determine for me what is a proper experiment with truth. Why? Because the philosophers are a minority among the global population and what they consider as objective or subjective is approved among themselves only and given as a guideline to the rest. Compartmentalization is a major problem because what enters the textbooks as objective knowledge in a given field is considered and approved by a very limited number of individuals. Most writings are 'safe' articles which rely solely on a combination of previous ones to assemble a different combination of known things.
The process of discovery is a different matter as one reaches for the unknown.

There is also a gap between "knowing what" and "knowing how" which is increasing with the widespread tunnel vision approach in dealing with both real and virtual phenomena. The purpose of objective truth is to provide certainty for the individual to survive, interact with the others and have a safe environment. Most of us "know what" but do not "know how" and the agenda is to make the majority dependent on the system.

Does not matter whether it fits within one's systematic approach or not, everything that person does, consciously or subconsciously, is an experiment. One may not call it a truth experiment if terminology is so crucial to maintain a professional status, that's fine, but it will continue happening nonetheless.


Well, there are more assertions there I don't feel you've really given context for. I also don't feel you've adequately responded to my specific points, so we can stay friends and agree to disagree about this for now. If you're alright with that, at least. :]
This is your world. You're the creator.
-Bob Motherfucking Ross


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook