What is truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

You can't separate the two things.

You need to if you want to avoid conflation, because they're two different things. That's not to say that we don't often apply concepts to perceptions, but they're not the same thing.

To each individual they are the same. What is obvious is when they are the same.

What is less obvious is the objective.

Nope!

[SpheresOfBalance]

The only reason I'm bringing that up is that on your view, the fact that our sensory systems work as they do--by sending information along nerves, etc., is sufficient to imply that our perception isn't accurate and unmediated.

'Unmediated' what? 'Accurate' compared to what?

What we understand to be sound are vibrations in the air. If we didn't have ears, we might experience those vibrations in a different way. If we had different sorts of ears, then we would pick up a different range of vibrations. No possibility would be more or less 'accurate' than any of the others.
Accuracy would include all that the sound is comprised of, regardless of the ability of any sensor to sense it completely. Yet humans have created machines to sense that which we can't sense directly.


A dog does not hear in the way that humans hear, so which is hearing 'accurately', us or the dog? Does the dog's ears enable it to hear in an 'unmediated' way, or do ours? You say it is our human perception that is accurate and unmediated; how do you know? Suppose the dog disagrees?

However, that's just how the recording (and mastering, record or CD etc. cutting, stereo reproduction etc.) process works. Electrical information is sent along cables and so on and received by the mixing console etc.

So the fact that perception involves an analogous process doesn't imply representationalism, unless you believe that what comes out of a stereo isn't an accurate accounting of what a band sounded like from particular reference points in a system, but for some reason is a depiction of something that you can only know is your stereo to itself.

The stereo system reproduces the vibrations in the air that the band produced, so we hear it in the same way. That is just pointing out that similar causes (particular vibrations in the air) produce similar effects (particular sensations of sound) in people equipped with similar ears and brains.

But it isn't about 'particular reference points in a system', the problem is that (since we have different ears and brains) although the stereo might duplicate the experience of the band for an individual, it does not duplicate the experience between different individuals. John says 'that recording sounds as if it was live' and Jane agrees, however because Jane has a different range of hearing her experience of both the live performance and the recording are different to John's. So, as with the dog example, how do you decide which one is 'accurate'? Is John's or Jane's version the 'unmediated' one?

So the stereo example misses the issue. I do not dispute that on most occasions, poking me repeatedly with a sharp stick will tend to repeatedly result in me feeling a stabbing pain. What I dispute is that the 'stabbing pain' is something that resides objectively in the stick, rather than in the person being poked. I do not think my pain is an accurate and unmediated representation of the stick. Nor do I think that my experience of hearing is an accurate and unmediated representation of vibrating air.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Would you admit it if it were?

Yes, of course, but you can't seriously think that it would be?

What does perception necessarily presuppose?

Nothing, it's just a recording of that which is there to perceive, as accurate as the recording device is capable.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well, there certainly are very strong arguments against the dichotomy.

Maybe there are, but how about presenting one then?

Saying that you feel that so and so is right, and that something "is fraught" definitely isn't a convincing argument.

Do you need convincing in order to drop the objective/subjective dichotomy from meaningful talk?

Yes, of course, because I disagree that there are problems with it. I think it's quite useful instead.

How does it take account of meaning and/or truth?

Meaning is always subjective, truth never is!

[SpheresOfBalance]

How many trees?

What??

You're conflating 'objects' of perception with perception.

Where am I doing that? Can you give an example?

You said that there were two perceptions of one tree. You've said that perception is mental. If the 'object' of perception is not mental, then what difference does it make whether the perceptions are? The option, of course, is to claim that the tree is objective, but we cannot ever access the tree because all we ever have access to is our perception of the tree...
Nope it's a reflection of the tree.

Is that an accurate summary of your viewpoint?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Simply negate what I said: "There are reasons to take noumena to be different than phenomena in cases where we don't have evidence supporting that some particular phenomenon was illusory."

You do not understand the terms you are using.

Hahaha, you really are either a ridiculously moronic ass or a great troll.

Both!

[SpheresOfBalance]

That comment might help you to tell your self you understand what you are saying but that does not make it true.
You are simply clueless about the noumena and the phenomena.

Clueless about whose concept of it? And why aren't you giving a clue (telling us what you concept you think we should be employing) to those of us without a clue in your opinion?

Smack him around a bit, he does that kind of crap all the time!

[Terrapin Station]

That comment might help you to tell your self you understand what you are saying but that does not make it true.
You are simply clueless about the noumena and the phenomena.

Clueless about whose concept of it? And why aren't you giving a clue (telling us what you concept you think we should be employing) to those of us without a clue in your opinion?

Smack him around a bit, he does that kind of crap all the time!

Yeah, from a couple different people there has been a lot of "You don't know what you're talking about (but I'm not about to give you the lowdown on it, either)"--because they haven't the faintest idea, or they would give what they take to be the lowdown on it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Sure it would. Truth is contained within a description as long as the description is truthful. A description of what is real, is only true when it agrees with reality.

Well, a description of a rock isn't the same thing as the rock in question, right?
Obviously!

And the rock isn't somehow (literally) contained in the description either.
Obviously!

But that's an unreasonable argument, as nothing can be anything but itself, which has nothing to do with truth, fact, and reality being one and the same, nor that one can't know the truth, facts and reality of an object without becoming that object. Science could not had done what in fact it has done if humans couldn't know the truth/facts/reality of an object without becoming that object. It's an absurd notion to even consider.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Clueless about whose concept of it? And why aren't you giving a clue (telling us what you concept you think we should be employing) to those of us without a clue in your opinion?

Smack him around a bit, he does that kind of crap all the time!

Yeah, from a couple different people there has been a lot of "You don't know what you're talking about (but I'm not about to give you the lowdown on it, either)"--because they haven't the faintest idea, or they would give what they take to be the lowdown on it.

That's typical around here. I admit that some things are hard to put into your own words, but one should always try to do so as best they can. When I don't understand ones jargon I'll either not reply to it or look up the facts pertaining to it via reliable reference material. To me this place is both a learning and teaching experience. It all depends on what's said. Some things I choose to respond to, others I don't, which speaks of my comfort zones, my familiarity, and what's important to me.

[Terrapin Station]

But that's an unreasonable argument, as nothing can be anything but itself, which has nothing to do with truth, fact, and reality being one and the same,

My comments in this tangent are just directed at you saying that "truth is a description of the real," contrasted with you earlier saying that truth is the real.

Descriptions of the real and the real are different. If a rock is real, a description of a rock is not the same thing as a rock. Truth is the description part in your view (and in other words, more or less, in my view, too). That would make truth not the real part (not the rock itself), at least in lieu of additional argumentation supporting that truth is ALSO a different thing, too, the real.

nor that one can't know the truth, facts and reality of an object without becoming that object.

I don't know who has a view that says anything like that, though (that we can't know something with "becoming that object")

[Terrapin Station]

To me this place is both a learning and teaching experience.

What I'm ultimately looking for is neither. I'm ultimately looking for a "friendly conversation experience" with people who are fond of academic philosophy. And I'm only looking for that because of my background in academic philosophy combined with the fact that I'm no longer involved in that social milieu, and I don't otherwise interact with many people with much knowledge of academic philosophy.

[SpheresOfBalance]

But that's an unreasonable argument, as nothing can be anything but itself, which has nothing to do with truth, fact, and reality being one and the same,

My comments in this tangent are just directed at you saying that "truth is a description of the real," contrasted with you earlier saying that truth is the real.
Well what I meant is that a description can contain the truth, if the description agrees with reality, if it is factual, is report of the actuality. If the description complies with truth/fact/reality it is just the same as if it were the object. Sensors are all we have, whether they be made by the universe or humans that mimic the universe, because they've 'sensed the truth' of the universe.


Descriptions of the real and the real are different. If a rock is real, a description of a rock is not the same thing as a rock. Truth is the description part in your view (and in other words, more or less, in my view, too). That would make truth not the real part (not the rock itself), at least in lieu of additional argumentation supporting that truth is ALSO a different thing, too, the real.
Actually I see that a description 'can' be the truth if it agrees with the object, that indeed the truth of the object is contained within itself. All things in the universe are real, factual, the actuality, the truth of the matter. Mans descriptions of things in the universe can be just as truthful, factual, real and actual, if they agree with the universe.

nor that one can't know the truth, facts and reality of an object without becoming that object.

I don't know who has a view that says anything like that, though (that we can't know something with "becoming that object")
It surely sounds like people are saying that, as their arguments seem to preclude any other way of knowing the truth/facts/reality/actuality of objects.

[Terrapin Station]

Actually I see that a description 'can' be the truth if it agrees with the object, that indeed the truth of the object is contained within itself. All things in the universe are real, factual, the actuality, the truth of the matter. Mans descriptions of things in the universe can be just as truthful, factual, real and actual, if they agree with the universe

But the only way to make any sense out of descriptions "agreeing with" what they describe is to consider a person thinking about the description, about the meanings they assign to the terms and so on, and then deciding that the description, from that subjective perspective, matches something about the world.

[Londoner]

Actually I see that a description 'can' be the truth if it agrees with the object, that indeed the truth of the object is contained within itself. All things in the universe are real, factual, the actuality, the truth of the matter. Mans descriptions of things in the universe can be just as truthful, factual, real and actual, if they agree with the universe.

Isn't just to describe a 'thing in the universe' already to not agree with the universe? The universe is a whole; once we divide it up in a particular way we are already imposing something in our own minds on the universe and thus misrepresenting it.