What is truth?

[Terrapin Station]

Very amusing. And what is the standard for accuracy?

Maybe I don't know what you're asking. I would basically be defining what accuracy is, though presumably you know this already, which made it curious that you asked in the first place. The standard for accuracy is that the presumably accurate thing gets right, or matches, what it's about.

Can you express that thought more clearly? I am particularly mystified by that reference to 'nominalism'.

The idea re nominalism is simply that two perceptions are not literally the same, that is, they're not numerically identical perceptions. "Same" can imply that to people who are not nominalists. I just want to make it clear that I do not mean "same" that way, since I'm a nominalist.

What would, or wouldn't be a 'qualitative' difference in hearing?

I'm assuming you understand the idea of "qualitative" in general. So in other words, an 80db sine wave @ 10,000 hz is played and both A and B perceive it. They're either qualitatively the "same" (in quotation marks because they're not numerically the same perception) or they're qualitatively different.

What I was emphasizing was that we know the differences in dog's hearing is in the vein of them being able to hear different frequencies than we hear, so say up to 30,000 hz or whatever it is (I don't recall what their range is, I'd have to look that up again), and being able to hear quieter sounds than we can hear, so that they could hear a 5 db sound at a hundred feet or whatever it is.

Those are not qualitative differences in hearing. We can't know whether there are qualitative differences in hearing between us and dogs.

Well it doesn't for the reasons I explained.

It doesn't not undermine it because of anything to do with people listening to stereos because it's not at all about that.

Either you believe that stereos (via the recording process, etc.) can accurately capture the sound of a band at the point of the microphones, etc. or you do not. You said that you believe that it can. That undermines the argument.

Maybe you'd want to change your answer to "it cannot," and you'd want to say that instead, what a stereo presents is a "mixing board only" creation, where that has an indeterminate relationship to the band.

It's up to you. But that's why I asked you this.

All it says is that, in an individual . . .

The problem is that the analogy has nothing to do with humans listening to stereos. So any comment on it in this vein simply doesn't understand what I was asking.

You keep mentioning things like 'representationalism' in your answers, as if we were supposed to understand something from it.

<sigh>

You mean to tell me that you're debating philosophy of perception with me and you haven't even the faintest idea what representationalism is?

C'mon, man. A lot of what I'm talking about isn't going to make much sense to you if you're not familiar with standard philosophy of perception literature, and a lot of other stuff I'm talking about isn't going to make much sense to you if you're not familiar with other specific philosophical literature. I don't mind explaining stuff, but arguing with me like this when you're not even familiar with the issues from an educated philosophical perspective is kind of ridiculous. You'd not be understanding a bunch of stuff I'm saying, but you'd be brushing over that and arguing anyway.

I'm not saying anything like "I'm right because I know more about this with respect to academic philosophy," by the way. It's rather that it's extremely frustrating to attempt to have a discussion like this where I'm talking about it in that context, yet you're not really understanding a lot of what I'm saying, but you're not telling me that, and you're mostly responding as if you do understand it but you're just being difficult or odd, and then I have to basically keep repeating the same points in other words hoping that it will sink in if I just say the same thing in a slightly different way.

[Londoner]

Maybe I don't know what you're asking. I would basically be defining what accuracy is, though presumably you know this already, which made it curious that you asked in the first place. The standard for accuracy is that the presumably accurate thing gets right, or matches, what it's about.

If perception is judged 'accurate' , what are you comparing it too?

Do you have some alternative method of examining the world, that isn't via perception, such that you can compare the two and say; 'Look, my perception was accurate' ?

The answer is; No. The best we can do is compare our perceptions to other people's. That just shows whether we are typical humans or not, it doesn't prove that human perception is an 'accurate' account of this other world beyond the perceived world, that you seem to claim you have access to.

I'm assuming you understand the idea of "qualitative" in general. So in other words, an 80db sine wave @ 10,000 hz is played and both A and B perceive it. They're either qualitatively the "same" (in quotation marks because they're not numerically the same perception) or they're qualitatively different.

What I was emphasizing was that we know the differences in dog's hearing is in the vein of them being able to hear different frequencies than we hear, so say up to 30,000 hz or whatever it is (I don't recall what their range is, I'd have to look that up again), and being able to hear quieter sounds than we can hear, so that they could hear a 5 db sound at a hundred feet or whatever it is.

Those are not qualitative differences in hearing. We can't know whether there are qualitative differences in hearing between us and dogs.

Yes, I understand what 'qualitative' means in general, but I still don't understand what you mean.

Dogs can hear things that we can't. Does that mean that human ears are not accurate? (Or that the dog ears are inaccurate because they perceive the wrong frequencies?) If our perception of sound is supposed to relate in some 'accurate' way to a world beyond perception, then either the dog or ourselves are getting it wrong. And if perception can be wrong in one case, it is unreliable in all cases.

Either you believe that stereos (via the recording process, etc.) can accurately capture the sound of a band at the point of the microphones, etc. or you do not. You said that you believe that it can. That undermines the argument.

No, the stereo cannot 'capture the sound'. The stereo cannot hear. Machines can record the compression in the airwaves caused by the band, then reproduce that compression. We 'hear', meaning we interpret that compression as sound. So does the dog, except the dog would interpret it in a different way to humans. So the stereo cannot have captured the sound, because if it had there would only be one sound. Since the sound is different for humans and dogs, we know the sound must arise in the listener's brain, not the stereo.

Me: You keep mentioning things like 'representationalism' in your answers, as if we were supposed to understand something from it.

<sigh>

You mean to tell me that you're debating philosophy of perception with me and you haven't even the faintest idea what representationalism is?

C'mon, man. A lot of what I'm talking about isn't going to make much sense to you if you're not familiar with standard philosophy of perception literature, and a lot of other stuff I'm talking about isn't going to make much sense to you if you're not familiar with other specific philosophical literature. I don't mind explaining stuff, but arguing with me like this when you're not even familiar with the issues from an educated philosophical perspective is kind of ridiculous. You'd not be understanding a bunch of stuff I'm saying, but you'd be brushing over that and arguing anyway.

I'm not saying anything like "I'm right because I know more about this with respect to academic philosophy," by the way. It's rather that it's extremely frustrating to attempt to have a discussion like this where I'm talking about it in that context, yet you're not really understanding a lot of what I'm saying, but you're not telling me that, and you're mostly responding as if you do understand it but you're just being difficult or odd, and then I have to basically keep repeating the same points in other words hoping that it will sink in if I just say the same thing in a slightly different way.

On the contrary, I know enough not to be bluffed in that way.

And if I had doubts, I would only have to look at the first paragraph of the Stanford Encyclopedia's article on 'Representational Theories of Consciousness' to confirm that my question as to what you meant by 'representationalism' was perfectly legitimate.

And I would remind you that I am the one who has repeatedly attempted to connect the terms you have used to philosophers, like Kant and Russell. You never take this up, so I am doubtful that if there is a failure to get me to understand your position it is because of my ignorance of philosophy.

[Terrapin Station]

If perception is judged 'accurate' , what are you comparing it too?

Ah. What you should ask is this: Is there a method to check if perception is accurate that doesn't involve perception?

One way to do that is via mechanical, electronic, etc. instruments, although of course, you need to perceive those, too, in order to read them.

The view isn't about the method of checking though.

And of course, we can't check to see that perception is inaccurate without using perception either.

it doesn't prove that human perception is an 'accurate' account

Tattoo this on your forehead:

EMPIRICAL CLAIMS ARE NOT PROVABLE. PERIOD.

No one was talking about proof of anything.

of this other world beyond the perceived world,

The perceived world IS the objective world. That's what you're perceiving. Objective things. That doesn't make perception objective, but what perception is OF is objective.

Those are not qualitative differences in hearing.

Look. I just explained this. You didn't get it. I'll explain it one more time, but I'm not typing the same thing over and over just because you can't get it but you want to argue.

WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO WITH QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES was differences in hearing, for example, a 10,000hz tone at 80db.

I wasn't referring to the fact that one creature hears a frequency that another doesn't hear.

I already explained that too--re perceiving different properties.

I'm not typing more until we're done with these two parts so that I don't have to keep typing the same thing over and over. I hate having to write long back and forth posts. I didn't read anything in your post past this point. You can type as much as you want, but if you want me to read something, keep it short.

[Londoner]

Me: If perception is judged 'accurate' , what are you comparing it too?

Ah. What you should ask is this: Is there a method to check if perception is accurate that doesn't involve perception?

I did.

One way to do that is via mechanical, electronic, etc. instruments, although of course, you need to perceive those, too, in order to read them.

The view isn't about the method of checking though.

And of course, we can't check to see that perception is inaccurate without using perception either.

So there isn't. So your claim that perception is 'accurate' is meaningless.

Tattoo this on your forehead:

EMPIRICAL CLAIMS ARE NOT PROVABLE. PERIOD.

No one was talking about proof of anything.

Why do I have to tattoo the word 'period' as well as the full stop?

I have no idea what that is about. You complain I write too much, yet you keep introducing words you won't explain, and diversions like this. It seems impolite to ignore them, but I don't suppose you are really want to open a new discussion on what we mean by 'proof' within a threads about what we mean by 'truth'.

The perceived world IS the objective world. That's what you're perceiving. Objective things. That doesn't make perception objective, but what perception is OF is objective.

I offered you this possibility many posts ago, when we discussing what you understood by 'objective', that there might be 'things-in-themselves', as distinct from things as we perceive them.

That's why I asked where you differed from Kant. And got no reply.

You can type as much as you want, but if you want me to read something, keep it short.

Obviously no point in referring you to Mr Kant then.

[Terrapin Station]

So your claim that perception is 'accurate' is meaningless.

What the heck do you take meaning to be? You must think that meaning is something very different than I think it is.

[creativesoul]

But the subjective/objective distinction does have some pertinence for meaning and truth; namely, both meaning and truth are subjective.

Truth is a relationship. Meaning consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself.

What, as precisely as possible, do you mean when you say "truth is subjective"? Define the term subjective for me, because I'm unsure how to make sense of much of the last reply.

[Londoner]

So your claim that perception is 'accurate' is meaningless.

What the heck do you take meaning to be? You must think that meaning is something very different than I think it is.

After all those exchanges, I now have less idea what you think about perception, truth or anything else than I had before we started.

[Terrapin Station]

But the subjective/objective distinction does have some pertinence for meaning and truth; namely, both meaning and truth are subjective.

Truth is a relationship. Meaning consists entirely of mental correlations drawn between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception and/or oneself.

What, as precisely as possible, do you mean when you say "truth is subjective"? Define the term subjective for me, because I'm unsure how to make sense of much of the last reply.

I defined the terms at least one other time in this thread, but I know it's way too much stuff to read through. So quoting myself from another post of mine a few pages back:

Subjective = mental phenomena, that is, brains functioning in mental ways.

Objective = the complement of mental phenomena, or in other words--"everything else," everything that isn't a brain functioning in a mental way.

Truth value is a judgment about the relation between a proposition and something else, such as states of affairs if we use correspondence theory. In my view it's necessarily a judgment, because there's no objective relation (such as correspondence) between sets of marks on a screen, say, and other states of affairs. And part of the reason for that is that meaning and intentionality are things that only occur mentally.

[Terrapin Station]

So your claim that perception is 'accurate' is meaningless.

What the heck do you take meaning to be? You must think that meaning is something very different than I think it is.

After all those exchanges, I now have less idea what you think about perception, truth or anything else than I had before we started.

That's not at all surprising to me.

It helps if:

(1) You don't assume that people fit into some template that you're familiar with. Instead, simply listen to what they say and remember that, and

(2) You ask direct questions about the person's views per se, and you do this out of genuine curiosity what they think--not instead for the purposes of them providing fodder to argue with.

None of this implies that you have to agree with the other person. But if you want to understand their views, if you want to have some idea why they hold those views, etc. you need genuine curiosity re learning about that person as that person, simply because they're a different person with unique views and you're interested in learning about different people.

[Londoner]

Me: After all those exchanges, I now have less idea what you think about perception, truth or anything else than I had before we started.

That's not at all surprising to me.

It helps if:

(1) You don't assume that people fit into some template that you're familiar with. Instead, simply listen to what they say and remember that, and

(2) You ask direct questions about the person's views per se, and you do this out of genuine curiosity what they think--not instead for the purposes of them providing fodder to argue with.

None of this implies that you have to agree with the other person. But if you want to understand their views, if you want to have some idea why they hold those views, etc. you need genuine curiosity re learning about that person as that person, simply because they're a different person with unique views and you're interested in learning about different people.

You don't have to fit into another person's template, but you need to have some sort of coherent idea. I do not think we have ever got to the stage of arguing; the process has been one of trying to work out what your position is; I read the words but they always seem to have slippery meanings, as soon as we are about to pin one word down that word is whisked away, to be replaced with another, equally elusive.

And if in order to understand your views I need to understand you as a person, I don't think we are doing philosophy. It sounds more like dating.

[Terrapin Station]

And if in order to understand your views I need to understand you as a person, I don't think we are doing philosophy. It sounds more like dating.

I don't believe that one can understand any view without it being personal. The idea that we can is one of the big myths/"grand narratives" that has led to a lot of ridiculous material. Views, meanings, concepts, etc. are necessarily personal.

[Terrapin Station]

Re this by the way:

the process has been one of trying to work out what your position is; I read the words but they always seem to have slippery meanings, as soon as we are about to pin one word down that word is whisked away, to be replaced with another, equally elusive.

That's why it's best to just tackle one small thing at a time.

I don't actually change the definitions I use for terms, and my views have been pretty much the same for decades. I don't always use conventional definitions necessarily, and my views aren't always conventional or unsurprising, but it's not like they keep shifting or anything.

[A_Seagull]

The perceived world IS the objective world.

This would appear to be the position of naive realism. Do you not consider the distinction between phenomena and noumena to be significant? For me it is at the very beginning of philosophy.

[Terrapin Station]

This would appear to be the position of naive realism. Do you not consider the distinction between phenomena and noumena to be significant? For me it is at the very beginning of philosophy.

I don't believe there's any reason to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory.

In my view, thinking that we can't access (a la knowledge by acquaintance) noumena is a mistake, and it leads to a lot of absurd views.

I should clarify that I'm not saying that noumena and phenomena are identical--there's what we're perceiving and there's perception. Rather, if we're perceiving a tree with a big knot on the trunk, say, there's no reason to not take it to really (objectively) be a tree with a big knot on the trunk. We'd need evidence that that was an illusion to believe otherwise, and evidence that it's an illusion is evidence that noumena matches alternate phenomena.

[Hobbes' Choice]

This would appear to be the position of naive realism. Do you not consider the distinction between phenomena and noumena to be significant? For me it is at the very beginning of philosophy.

I don't believe there's any reason to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory..

Duuuuuuuuuh!

This is unforgivably naive. Exactly why I gave up on Terror Pin.