What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[SpheresOfBalance]

lancek4,
I've been consistent throughout
truth is absolute.
truth is merely the state of actual existence.

And none of what I've said has had anything to do with uncovering truth
humans know little, if any, truth.

are you not little, if any, human? I don't understand this.
are you not uncovering truth? No, just talking about whether it's relative or absolute.
is there consistence between those sentences? The consistency I'm referring to is between posts.
are you saying that you have been logical when you have been consistent throughout No just that I'm not waffling between posts and is that enough in philosophical epistemology? that was not the intended meaning, so this does not apply.sorry my english. Your English seems to be pretty good, I'm only having a problem with one of your points.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...Now may your discussion come to a robust conclusion with Spheres and Barbara if she still wants to (understandable if she doesn't).

Hey Ron, Actually she hasn't really been involved. But your statement "understandable if she doesn't" seems to be out of character. What exactly did you mean?

In the philosophy of mind thread, Lance called for this response from Barbara:

Also, who the hell are you to denounce me as uneducated, I say your a clown!

and the dispute continued here.

Oh, now I see, I should have known better than to think for even a second that you'd publicly try and humiliate anyone for any reason. From the moment I read one of your posts I had a sense that it was beneath you, and rightfully so. Thanks for the clarification. I wish I was fast enough not to have required it, but one can't turn back time.

PEACE, my friend!
I hope you'll always have health, happiness and wisdom!

[Ron de Weijze]

No problem Spheres, sorry I confused you. I honestly didn't even suspect it might be understood differently, so I am glad that was pointed out and defused.

[lancek4]

lancek4,
I've been consistent throughout, Basically my position is that truth is absolute. it existed since the beginning of time, as truth is merely the state of actual existence. Humans created untruths in the face of truth initially because of fear. Of course today there are a plethora of reasons we do it. Fear, greed, psychological imbalance, lust, power, etc. Anyone that sees truth as relative does so to feed their selfish desires. Relative truth breeds anarchy. The really funny thing about anarchists is that you won't catch them sticking a loaded gun in their mouths and pulling the trigger. This a an important distinction when considering the lessons of mutually assured destruction.

And none of what I've said has had anything to do with uncovering truth, which is an extremely complicated matter, such that I've previously said that humans know little, if any, truth. Just because we're surrounded by it doesn't mean we understand it. There are limitations of our 5 senses as well as our minds eye.

I believe that's a complete recap, though I might have left something out.

Later

Yourt propsition rests on vague terms, themselves that beg the question of your proposal

For example: "humans understand little...of truth". So what do you understand? What does your proposal say of itself then? Are you not promoting yourself as a prileledged individual who understands more than others?
How is it that you have come to understand more?

[SpheresOfBalance]

lancek4,
I've been consistent throughout, Basically my position is that truth is absolute. it existed since the beginning of time, as truth is merely the state of actual existence. Humans created untruths in the face of truth initially because of fear. Of course today there are a plethora of reasons we do it. Fear, greed, psychological imbalance, lust, power, etc. Anyone that sees truth as relative does so to feed their selfish desires. Relative truth breeds anarchy. The really funny thing about anarchists is that you won't catch them sticking a loaded gun in their mouths and pulling the trigger. This a an important distinction when considering the lessons of mutually assured destruction.

And none of what I've said has had anything to do with uncovering truth, which is an extremely complicated matter, such that I've previously said that humans know little, if any, truth. Just because we're surrounded by it doesn't mean we understand it. There are limitations of our 5 senses as well as our minds eye.

I believe that's a complete recap, though I might have left something out.

Later

Yourt propsition rests on vague terms, themselves that beg the question of your proposal

For example: "humans understand little...of truth". So what do you understand? What does your proposal say of itself then? Are you not promoting yourself as a prileledged individual who understands more than others?
How is it that you have come to understand more?

You're correct I'm a nobody like everyone else. But the truth is there is no rule as to were knowledge or truth comes from. It can come from anywhere. I even believe that it could possibly be sensed on some level. But I lay no claim to that. At least not that I'm aware of.

I'm not your average person. I hate head to head sports believing them barbaric and I refer to them as impure sports. I prefer the original Olympic sports of side by side competition. I call these pure sports. I'm non violent yet I was in the navy. When I joined I said to myself that if I was ever asked to kill someone that I'd yell conscientious objector and take the punishment. At an early age I was forced to train for 5 years to fight such that I was the youngest blackbelt ever in our style, which dates back to the shogun samurai and I made 3 television appearances because of my capabilities, however I've ran away from all the fights I've ever encountered. I believe that I won them because no one was capable of catching me. I went to university and was on the deans list the majority of my time there but yet I never read one of my books except the tested reading assignments. All I did was listen to the lectures and take notes. I've been an outcast my entire life. I won't follow anyone and I won't lead either. I'm a hermit. The last time I worked was in 2005 for about 6 months prior to that the last time I worked was in 1992. I've always absolutely loved nature. When I was a kid I used to watch cowboy and Indian movies and root for the Indians even though I'm a white man. I've been around the world to many countries where I've seen children playing is cesspools and people dying in the streets from starvation and wondered why Americans throw away perfectly good food. I've been in 5 star hotels with golden chandeliers and solid granite floors and walls and in wooden huts made of discarded pallets. I've worked as a grave digger, laborer, carpenter, machinist, photographer, electronics technician, spray painter, hydraulic/pneumatic/electrical/mechanical technician, Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator (operating 5 electronic sensors), Aviation Ordnanceman (weapons systems technician), I've loaded a live nuclear weapon (that was fun). I took a non standard IQ test that instead of 140 being genius and 100 being average, 160 was genius and 122 was average I got a 146. I took a personality test where I was said to be highly observant such that I'm capable of knowing what people are about to say prior to them saying it, such that it angers then and as such I'm not liked very much. Which is true. I'm telling you all this crap. I'm one strange individual.

The reason I've told you all this is to prove that I have no specific qualifications other than an affinity for philosophy. My interest in psychology was a matter of self help. I decided that one should try an unravel the mysteries of their psyches to become clear and really know themselves; why we do the things we do, because my childhood was terrible.

Anyway, now that I've bored you to tears...

There are probably greater than hundreds of billions of things to know. So far here on this forum I've really only concerned myself with one. And that's the essence of truth. I've always understood it to be absolute. The definition says it all IMHO. To say that truth is 'all that actually exists' clearly gives way to it being absolute. To say that 'human senses are ill equipped to sense it' gives way to it being absolute. If in fact there was a being that witnessed it all from the big bang until now with an all sensing photographic memory. What ever it recorded would be a singular truth of the cause and effect that eventually gave way to human life and thus would be absolute despite that we are oblivious. But does it really require a being to be present to understand that there had to be one sequence of events leading to now. I see it like one of those HUGE Domino tipping setups where one domino (big Bang) is tipped causing thousands of domino's to fall one at a time each causing another to fall in sequence. Though there are many individual routes they all come together as one big picture (one truth). Of course we have no clue because by universal standards we're SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO young. Just a mere spec on an infinite time-line. No what I'm telling you surely is not definite knowledge but it's what I believe truly must be true given the evidence that we believe we've uncovered up till today. I forgot to tell you that my favorite TV station is the science channel, though I haven't been watching it recently due to the economy.

In case you are unaware, I've been mostly concerned with truth as it relates to the cosmos, which is pretty much unknowable at this point. Oh well!

[SpheresOfBalance]

LanceK4,

First off my previous long winded bit was to make you think in truth about what prerequisites are required in making a discovery. I believe there are none!

OK, I have a proposal for you. I believe that you're not here as some people are, i.e., just to bolster your self image. And that you are truly seeking wisdom. So lets not try and impress each other with our means of commanding English vocabulary and instead try and clearly outline our view to ensure the other understands it. Do me a favor and either re-present your view on truth or provide a link to it as long as it is easy to understand. Also please rip mine to shreds in the same fashion. Of course I shall do the same. This shall not be an attempt to compete but rather an unraveling of our understanding of truth so as to get down to its essence.

Here' mine:

Truth is all that/'s actually exists/existed/shall exist, and as such is absolute. The reason human's have a difficult time uncovering truth, is due to their physical and mental limitations. This, I believe, shall be overcome with continued evolution, both in terms of human physical and mental capabilities, and our machines.

Please rip it to shreds, but I expect a similar declaration from you. That I shall also rip to shreds. I shall use dictionaries to establish accurate meanings of words because if a word is used incorrectly then it may convey something other than intended.

I promise that I'll stay focused on both defending and shredding our declarations. Though I'm sure sidebars will occur, I shall immediately return to the task at hand, as mentioned in the previous sentence.

This shall be an exercise in unraveling truth, nothing more/nothing less.

[lancek4]

Point taken. SOB I don't have Nearly the Earth-life actual experience of your resume. .

May I address 'truth' once again, by what I've encoutered in your last post -

Ok, I concede: the Truth is everything that exists.
See that I am not arguing 'against' the fact of human atrocities on the planet.

And then you do admit that your concern is with the cosmos.

My question, I suppose, does not take the cosmos as the base given.

If the 'absolute truth' is (def) all that exists, I see the problem thus:

Am I an object of the universe among other objects, constituted and manifest as these other objects?

Or
Are these objects 'there' existing only to the extent of my knowledge of them?

How does this latter offer a different take on 'the truth is all that exists' ?

In other words: how do I, can I, know - in what way may my knowledge relate to "all that exists"?

[lancek4]

I suppose in a life where one has had things 'happen to' one, or where one must 'assert' it self upon things, it might be difficult to pry one's idea of self from the 'agency' of the cosmological object.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Point taken. SOB I don't have Nearly the Earth-life actual experience of your resume. . The truth of it's significance is yet to be understood.

May I address 'truth' once again, by what I've encoutered in your last post -

Ok, I concede: the Truth is everything that exists. Damn, I am disappointed with this. But I must advise you that you have eliminated the most important word in the def. And thats the word "Actual." "Actual" is the qualifier.
See that I am not arguing 'against' the fact of human atrocities on the planet.Know that if you were arguing "human atrocities", I would side against any entity that has in any way caused the harm of any human being regardless of the justification.

And then you do admit that your concern is with the cosmos. That's why I'm here, Yes! I'm seeking life's meaning. Life is born of stardust.

My question, I suppose, does not take the cosmos as the base given. Here I assume that what you mean is this: you believe that the following question does not incorporate the belief that the cosmos is the origin of truth. Is this correct?

If the 'absolute truth' is (def) all that exists, I see the problem thus:

Am I an object of the universe among other objects, constituted and manifest as these other objects? Here I take you to mean that: are you and I objects of the universe among other objects made obviously as these other objects? Is this true?

Or
Are these objects 'there' existing only to the extent of my knowledge of them? This believe this is clear; you're asking if objects exist solely because you know them to exist. (The "If a tree falls in the forest" exercise) Correct?

How does this latter offer a different take on 'the truth is all that exists' ? You believe that your second proposal above somehow alters my definition of truth.

In other words: how do I, can I, in what way may my knowledge relate to "all that exists"? So you believe that you cannot say that any part of "all that exists" actually exists until such time as you've perceived it's existence. So you have a problem acknowledging "all that exists?"

[SpheresOfBalance]

I suppose in a life where one has had things 'happen to' one, or where one must 'assert' it self upon things, it might be difficult to pry one's idea of self from the 'agency' of the cosmological object.

I don't know if you believe you are sharing a general statement of your understanding as based upon your life experiences or are pointing your belief at someone as a form of judgment as if it is in truth, in an attempt to elevate self.

[Mark Question]

lancek4,
I've been consistent throughout
truth is absolute.
truth is merely the state of actual existence.
And none of what I've said has had anything to do with uncovering truth
humans know little, if any, truth.

are you not little, if any, human? I don't understand this.

"humans know little, if any, truth." "are you not little, if any, human?"
do you know little, if any truth?

are you not uncovering truth? No, just talking about whether it's relative or absolute.

are you not uncovering your body if you are just taking of your gloves, body armor or shoes? my foot sweat would be classified as terrorism.

is there consistence between those sentences? The consistency I'm referring to is between posts.

are you not worried about consistency in your post?

are you saying that you have been logical when you have been consistent throughout No just that I'm not waffling between posts

i see. i hope.

and is that enough in philosophical epistemology? that was not the intended meaning, so this does not apply.

you are using consistency as an argument, are you not? so philosophically speaking about the truth, is consistency theories or coherence theories of truth your favorite theory in epistemology? how do you know what you know about truth?

[lancek4]

Btw: I agree to your proposal. In this post, my responses wi be in "" quotes because my blkbrry doesn't do well here.

Point taken. SOB I don't have Nearly the Earth-life actual experience of your resume. . The truth of it's significance is yet to be understood.

May I address 'truth' once again, by what I've encoutered in your last post -

Ok, I concede: the Truth is everything that exists. Damn, I am disappointed with this. But I must advise you that you have eliminated the most important word in the def. And thats the word "Actual." "Actual" is the qualifier.
"See also that I believe we have a concensus to this point: all, everything of the cosmos equals the defition of Absolute Truth. I am attempting here to lay such a basis between us as plainly as possible.
And so much then I could say there is such an Absolute. "

See that I am not arguing 'against' the fact of human atrocities on the planet.Know that if you were arguing "human atrocities", I would side against any entity that has in any way caused the harm of any human being regardless of the justification.
"I mite disagrree - slightly - but it would derail our issue here"

And then you do admit that your concern is with the cosmos. That's why I'm here, Yes! I'm seeking life's meaning. Life is born of stardust.

My question, I suppose, does not take the cosmos as the base given. Here I assume that what you mean is this: you believe that the following question does not incorporate the belief that the cosmos is the origin of truth. Is this correct?
"The problem between us appears to me concerning 'cosmos' - may we proceed from here, that we might move slowly, step by step, and see exactly where our debate would otherwise arouse polemics: how might you define cosmos?"


If the 'absolute truth' is (def) all that exists, I see the problem thus:

Am I an object of the universe among other objects, constituted and manifest as these other objects? Here I take you to mean that: are you and I objects of the universe among other objects made obviously as these other objects? Is this true?
" Yes. This is what I mean. In the same way, Each object exists in an arena of objects - but first this is why I first ask for a stable definition of cosmos".

Or
Are these objects 'there' existing only to the extent of my knowledge of them? This believe this is clear; you're asking if objects exist solely because you know them to exist. (The "If a tree falls in the forest" exercise) Correct?
"In a way, I agree. Your paraphrase indicates I discrepancy of meaning between us.


How does this latter offer a different take on 'the truth is all that exists' ? You believe that your second proposal above somehow alters my definition of truth.

In other words: how do I, can I, in what way may my knowledge relate to "all that exists"? So you believe that you cannot say that any part of "all that exists" actually exists until such time as you've perceived it's existence. So you have a problem acknowledging "all that exists?"

" Perception is a problematic term as well ".

[lancek4]

I will offer a working definition:
One which I attempt to include what I think is yours as well
Cosmos - I see this as a Carl Segan kind. There is the tree, the road, cars, the earth, the planets, the experimental physical sciences math and the things of the experiments as well as the results.
This definition thus includes what we could be called 'effects' of these things of the cosmos, such as gravity, air, and also imagination, creativity, and other human attributes of consciousness.

Is this definition sufficient?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Btw: I agree to your proposal.

Message sequence hierarchy:
Lancek4 original post color
SOB response
Lancek4: In this post, my responses will be in "" quotes because my blkbrry doesn't do well here.
SOB 2nd response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point taken. SOB I don't have Nearly the Earth-life actual experience of your resume. .
The truth of it's significance is yet to be understood.

May I address 'truth' once again, by what I've encountered in your last post -

OK, I concede: the Truth is everything that exists.
Damn, I am disappointed with this. But I must advise you that you have eliminated the most important word in the def. And that's the word "Actual." "Actual" is the qualifier.
"See also that I believe we have a consensus to this point: all, everything of the cosmos equals the definition of Absolute Truth. I am attempting here to lay such a basis between us as plainly as possible.
And so much then I could say there is such an Absolute. "
OK, but realize that I don't believe that truth is absolute, only when it includes everything.

See that I am not arguing 'against' the fact of human atrocities on the planet.
Know that if you were arguing "human atrocities", I would side against any entity that has in any way caused the harm of any human being regardless of the justification.
"I mite disagree - slightly - but it would derail our issue here"
I would like to address this Later, if you agree.

And then you do admit that your concern is with the cosmos.
That's why I'm here, Yes! I'm seeking life's meaning. Life is born of stardust.

My question, I suppose, does not take the cosmos as the base given.
Here I assume that what you mean is this: you believe that the following question does not incorporate the belief that the cosmos is the origin of truth. Is this correct?
"The problem between us appears to me concerning 'cosmos' - may we proceed from here, that we might move slowly, step by step, and see exactly where our debate would otherwise arouse polemics: how might you define cosmos?"
After revisiting the definition I would say that the term "cosmos" seems to lean towards creationism with it's use of 'orderly' and 'harmonious.' Whereas universe allows for either 'chaos' or 'orderly harmoniousness.' So I'll have to revert back to universe.

If the 'absolute truth' is (def) all that exists, I see the problem thus:

Am I an object of the universe among other objects, constituted and manifest as these other objects?
Here I take you to mean that: are you and I objects of the universe among other objects made obviously as these other objects? Is this true?
" Yes. This is what I mean. In the same way, Each object exists in an arena of objects - but first this is why I first ask for a stable definition of cosmos".

Or
Are these objects 'there' existing only to the extent of my knowledge of them?
This believe this is clear; you're asking if objects exist solely because you know them to exist. (The "If a tree falls in the forest" exercise) Correct?
"In a way, I agree. Your paraphrase indicates I discrepancy of meaning between us.
Is there anything you can add to negate the ambiguity?

How does this latter offer a different take on 'the truth is all that exists' ?
You believe that your second proposal above somehow alters my definition of truth.

In other words: how do I, can I, in what way may my knowledge relate to "all that exists"?
So you believe that you cannot say that any part of "all that exists" actually exists until such time as you've perceived it's existence. So you have a problem acknowledging "all that exists?"
" Perception is a problematic term as well ".
What Do you prefer; sensing?

[lancek4]

Perhaps, SOb, you could reference my 'Segan'-esque definition. Universe or cosmos does not matter to me. I think it might be prudent for our discussion if we find a term that we can both agree upon and go from there. I suggest 'cosmos' or 'universe' because our discerning of what may be true seems to stem from an ambiguity centered around this idea.

How might you ammend my definition of 'cosmos' or 'universe'; which ever term you prefer to begin with - or any other term ?