A dog is more real than a hallucinated dog, a dog that features in a dream, or any dog that does not exist. Some percepts are more real than other percepts.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:56 am1 Sorry, but I find what you say ridiculous. 'Features of reality or nature are real in proportion to how reasonable they are.' Is a dog real in proportion to how reasonable it is? This is completely incoherent. The rationality (reasonableness) of a claim - such as that a dog exists - depends on the evidence for the claim. But a dog can't be reasonable or unreasonable - in the sense you're using the word 'reasonable'.Belinda wrote: ↑Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:59 amFeatures of reality or nature are real in proportion to how reasonable they are. For instance a reverie is less real than a realistic plan. E.g. an hallucination is less real than a perception in which memories are not taken to be real. E.g. waking awareness reveals more reality than dreaming sleep.Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:12 pm
1 Perceived features of reality have no truth-value, relatively or otherwise. That claim is incoherent.
2 Whether mind-dependent or not, outside language, features of reality have no truth-value. Only sentences making factual assertions can be true or false. Perhaps something so glaringly obvious is hard to see. The myth of propositions is potent and pervasive.
3 Why is it morally wrong to eat what you know to be poison, in order to stay alive - and so on, for all your examples?
Besides isolated percepts there are frameworks of knowledge and belief that are more , or less, real.The more real Fs of K and B are those that are based on reason and more extensive knowledge of causes and effects.
I think the phrase 'truth value' is special to deductive logic and not to inductive reasoning .Again, as you say, "Only sentences making factual assertions can be true or false" applies only to deductive logic but not inductive logic which deals in relative values.. Deductive logic,same as mathematics, abstracts from nature or reality.
Ignorance is the basic barrier to goodness, truth, and beauty. While nobody can know everything the more a man knows the better man he is in any sphere of life you can think of. It is therefore immoral to keep a population, one's child, the electorate, or one's employees in ignorance or misapprehension.. Dissemination of the best knowledge available is a moral activity.
2 We use the words 'true' and 'false', assigning truth-value, to factual assertions. And the premises in an induction can be factual assertions. So there's no difference between inductions and deductions in this respect. That the truth-value of a factual assertion may be probabilistic is a separate matter. And your introduction of 'relative values' just confuses the issue, in my opinion.
3 That we should pursue goodness, truth and beauty is an opinion, not a fact.
It is a large part of the work of the brain-mind to decide what is are more real and act accordingly. For instance I read in today's paper that Mr Johnson the prime minister will permit a coal mine to be established in Cumbria. Johnson's idea that a new coal mine is a good idea is less real because he apparently takes no notice of the danger of fossil fuels to climate stability. The safest way to evaluate the actions of any politician (or anything else) is to apply the criterion of knowledge and judgement to his actions.
A man's knowledge and judgement fail unless the man is oriented towards a transcendental virtue such as truth, goodness, or beauty. Reason is the surest way to inject the most truth, goodness, or beauty .In fact an individual who lacks that orientation has a physical lesion in his forebrain, or else is comatose.
