What is Truth?

[RCSaunders]

Not, "it," but, "them," are the foundation of my conceptual understanding. They are my consciousness (one thing) and that which I am conscious of (the other thing), which is existence.

Yes, but existence has no categories. Hence the problem.

So what's the problem?

[Skepdick]

So what's the problem?

If existence doesn't come pre-categorized, what is "it" that you are identifying/categorizing?

[RCSaunders]

If existence doesn't come pre-categorized, what is "it" that you are identifying/categorizing?

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Pre-categorized," by whom. And I have no idea what the, "it," is you are referring to.

I've already answered your question. You don't like it, which is fine with me, I'm not interested in changing your mind. Why do you so desparately want to change mine?

[Skepdick]

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Pre-categorized," by whom.

That's what I am trying to figure out!

And I have no idea what the, "it," is you are referring to.

The "it" is existence. If existence is not discrete, then who or what is discretising existence into sub-categories of existence?

I've already answered your question. You don't like it, which is fine with me, I'm not interested in changing your mind. Why do you so desparately want to change mine?

I don't care if you change your mind. Freedom of choice and all that. I am pointing out your error - you are free to choose to sweep it under the rug.

That's what all philosophers do anyway.

[RCSaunders]

I have no idea what you are talking about. "Pre-categorized," by whom.

That's what I am trying to figure out!

And I have no idea what the, "it," is you are referring to.

The "it" is existence. If existence is not discrete, then who or what is discretising existence into sub-categories of existence?

I see your problem. "Existence," is not a, "thing." Existence is a collective term, like "the band," or, "the crowd," and only means all the things that exist, just as the, "the band," means all the band members, or "the crowd," means all the people that make up the crowd. Existence is not discrete because it's just the term for all the entities that exist, which are individually discrete.

Nobody is, "discretising," those entities. They are discrete, which only means they are individual existents, which is why they can be discovered and identified.

I've already answered your question. You don't like it, which is fine with me, I'm not interested in changing your mind. Why do you so desparately want to change mine?

I don't care if you change your mind. Freedom of choice and all that. I am pointing out your error.[/quote]
You haven't yet.

That's what all philosophers do anyway.

I don't think all philosophers feel obliged to go around pointing out everyone else's errors. Do you really?

[Skepdick]

I see your problem. "Existence," is not a, "thing." Existence is a collective term, like "the band," or, "the crowd," and only means all the things that exist, just as the, "the band," means all the band members, or "the crowd," means all the people that make up the crowd. Existence is not discrete because it's just the term for all the entities that exist, which are individually discrete.

Now you are just back-tracking, now that you figured out we've arrived at the gallows

What's the ontological nature of a "thing"?

Nobody is, "discretising," those entities. They are discrete, which only means they are individual existents, which is why they can be discovered and identified.

Really? Then you should be able to tell me about the ontological nature of an "entities" and "existents"?

How does identification work?

I don't think all philosophers feel obliged to go around pointing out everyone else's errors.

You tell me. I am not a philosopher.

If you don't feel obliged to go around pointing out other people's errors, do you at least recognise your own? Scientists do.

[RCSaunders]

I don't think all philosophers feel obliged to go around pointing out everyone else's errors.

You tell me. I am not a philosopher.

Just replying to what you said:

I am pointing out your error - you are free to choose to sweep it under the rug. That's what all philosophers do anyway.

You may not be a philosopher, but you do have philosophy, whether you call it that or not:

Every human being not only must have a philosophy, but actually does have one, though few have an explicit philosophy or are even aware of their beliefs being a philosophy, and may even deny having a philosophy. Whatever one's fundamental beliefs are, which they base all their other beliefs, values, and choices on, is their philosophy.

If you don't feel obliged to go around pointing out other people's errors, do you at least recognise your own? Scientists do.

Of course, and the same way, "scientists," do. When I act on the basis of a mistaken belief, reality ensures the expected result fails.

[Skepdick]

You may not be a philosopher, but you do have philosophy, whether you call it that or not

Every human being not only must have a philosophy, but actually does have one, though few have an explicit philosophy or are even aware of their beliefs being a philosophy, and may even deny having a philosophy. Whatever one's fundamental beliefs are, which they base all their other beliefs, values, and choices on, is their philosophy.

So if I have a philosophy then I have a philosophy, and if I don't have a philosophy then I still have a philosophy? How unscientific of you.

Observe also that what you are doing above is precisely what Quine explains as the process of committing oneself to an ontology. You are necessarily claiming that every person has a philosophy - philosophy exists. And by closing the door on falsification, your claim can't possibly be false. That's what all dogma looks like.

For somebody who dislikes academic philosophy you sure exemplify it.

My fundamental philosophy is that I don't have a philosophy. Does that mean I have a philosophy or not?
My fundamental belief is that I don't have any beliefs. Does that mean I have beliefs or not?

Of course, and the same way, "scientists," do. When I act on the basis of a mistaken belief, reality ensures the expected result fails.

Why the hell would you ever act on a knowingly mistaken belief? Surely no rational person acts towards failure?!? That's just self-sabotage.

I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. -- Thomas Edison.

Good ol' Thomas (scientist and inventor, but not a philosopher) was simply explaining how algorithmic backtracking works.

[RCSaunders]

Of course, and the same way, "scientists," do. When I act on the basis of a mistaken belief, reality ensures the expected result fails.

Why the hell would you ever act on a knowingly mistaken belief? Surely no rational person acts towards failure?!? That's just self-sabotage.

Because at the time, like Edison, I do not know the belief is mistaken, and do not know it until I have tested all 10,000 wrong conjectures. But you knew that.

[Janoah]

The non-physical natural qualities cannot be directly perceived nor can they be explained in physical terms. ... We cannot directly perceive our consciousness, such as "seeing," for example,

Still, thinking is physical natural qualities,
and just like everything material, it is material because it is perceived by the senses, directly or indirectly.
In comparison, the human brain functions like a computer brain, much like a hand can function as an excavator.
Thinking of a computer is detected by electric currents, and thinking of a person by processes in neurons.
The images that a person sees in consciousness are like images on a display. It is clear that an animal that a person sees in consciousness or on a display may not exist in nature, but these images are physical, material, they are visible, just like fantastic paintings on canvas.

[Nick_A]

RCSaunders,

Noted there are various threads on this.
Instead of hunting old threads, suggest this new one.

VA, the last thing I wrote to you was, "I'm also not very interested in refuting all the mistaken philosophy there is, especially since I think most of what goes by the name philosophy is mistaken. I am really only interested in what is true. What is false is infinite in scope and can never by fully addressed.

Do you understand what is really true and truth?
I opened a new thread and would like to have your view on What is Truth?

So what is really true and truth?

What is the difference between truth and partial truths? Do they really mean the same thing because we use the same word for all?

[henry quirk]

RCSaunders,

Noted there are various threads on this.
Instead of hunting old threads, suggest this new one.

Do you understand what is really true and truth?
I opened a new thread and would like to have your view on What is Truth?

So what is really true and truth?

What is the difference between truth and partial truths? Do they really mean the same thing because we use the same word for all?

I'm black or white on this: there are no partial truths; there's what is, everything else is fictions or lies

the trick, of course, in more subtle matters, is figurin' out what is true and what is fiction or lie

[Veritas Aequitas]

RCSaunders,

Noted there are various threads on this.
Instead of hunting old threads, suggest this new one.

Do you understand what is really true and truth?
I opened a new thread and would like to have your view on What is Truth?

So what is really true and truth?

What is the difference between truth and partial truths? Do they really mean the same thing because we use the same word for all?

What is truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

What is truth also comes in degrees of veracity conditioned upon the verification and justification process used.

The term 'partial truth' is used when referring to a state-of-affairs that comprised of mixed elements of reality where some are true and some are non-so-true and questionable.

A partial-truth can be expressed unintentionally or deliberated to deceive.
Note half-truth below;

A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may use some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth

[Nick_A]

RCSaunders,

Noted there are various threads on this.
Instead of hunting old threads, suggest this new one.



So what is really true and truth?

What is the difference between truth and partial truths? Do they really mean the same thing because we use the same word for all?

What is truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

What is truth also comes in degrees of veracity conditioned upon the verification and justification process used.

The term 'partial truth' is used when referring to a state-of-affairs that comprised of mixed elements of reality where some are true and some are non-so-true and questionable.

A partial-truth can be expressed unintentionally or deliberated to deceive.
Note half-truth below;

A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may use some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth

3+2=5 is a partial truth while ONE or the source of math is the truth. Fractions are partial truths while ONE is the truth

[Veritas Aequitas]

What is the difference between truth and partial truths? Do they really mean the same thing because we use the same word for all?

What is truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality.

What is truth also comes in degrees of veracity conditioned upon the verification and justification process used.

The term 'partial truth' is used when referring to a state-of-affairs that comprised of mixed elements of reality where some are true and some are non-so-true and questionable.

A partial-truth can be expressed unintentionally or deliberated to deceive.
Note half-truth below;

A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may use some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame or misrepresent the truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-truth

3+2=5 is a partial truth while ONE or the source of math is the truth. Fractions are partial truths while ONE is the truth

Nope.

All truths are conditional even if 99.999% true [or say 100%], i.e. true within their respective Framework and System of Truth or Knowledge.
3 + 2 = 5 is 99.999999999999% true within the Decimal Arithmetical Framework and System and its stated conditions.

If one use a binary or other number systems 3 + 2 may not equal to 5.

When considered with the element of synergy, 1 + 1 = 3 is possible.

So if your point is contentious, you must qualify the conditions you are relying upon, else the default in this case is simple arithmetic.