(October 15, 2012 at 8:11 pm)Comprehender Wrote: The answer to "why" depends on perspective, as does all truth.

Hmm, no, certainly not "all" truth.

1. Rhizo can see the tree. True or False depends, literally, on perspective. ok.

2. Electrons have negative charges. True or False has nothing to do with perspective.

I think that most truth is objective rather than subjective.

(October 15, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote:

(October 15, 2012 at 8:11 pm)Comprehender Wrote: The answer to "why" depends on perspective, as does all truth.

Hmm, no, certainly not "all" truth.

1. Rhizo can see the tree. True or False depends, literally, on perspective. ok.

2. Electrons have negative charges. True or False has nothing to do with perspective.

I think that most truth is objective rather than subjective.

It would "seem" that all truth is objective, but who says so?

Somebody looks at a cell and sees maybe just skin, or whatever the cell is of. Another person looks through a microscope and sees evidence of the perspective of "electrons having a negative charge."

Truth is in perspective.
Still, the more perspectives, the more truthful.

Is truth only about the limited field of physics, or is truth also involved with astronomy, physiology, meterology, philosophy, psychology... etc.?

No truth relates to anything knowable or unknowable. Any proposition is either true or untrue. Simple logic really.

(October 15, 2012 at 9:34 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: I think that most truth is objective rather than subjective.

The truth of any proposition is dependent on its correspondence to objective reality. Of course propositions, true or otherwise, are only meaningful for subjects .. which have only ever been observed in bodies, which again are objects.

"Truth" is only a meaningful category for subjects. As subjects who create a mental description of the world, we have reason to care where that description fits or falls short. Truth is all about the fit.

That'll be two cents please.

Well, his statement that truth is dependant on perspective seems to suggest that truth is subjective and changes depending on how you look at a thing, which is wrong because a thing is true regardless of how we feel about it or whether or not we can see it or not. It seems that we are in agreeance if you are saying that a propostion that lines up with objective reality is true whereas one that does not would necesarily be false.

Now "truth" as it relates to beauty or happiness would be a subjective thing, but I would not choose to use the concept truth when dealing with such subjects except in a geometric dimensioning and tolerancing context of "true" being used to denote orthogonality.

(October 16, 2012 at 1:08 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Well, his statement that truth is dependant on perspective seems to suggest that truth is subjective and changes depending on how you look at a thing, which is wrong because a thing is true regardless of how we feel about it or whether or not we can see it or not. It seems that we are in agreeance if you are saying that a propostion that lines up with objective reality is true whereas one that does not would necesarily be false.

Now "truth" as it relates to beauty or happiness would be a subjective thing, but I would not choose to use the concept truth when dealing with such subjects except in a geometric dimensioning and tolerancing context of "true" being used to denote orthogonality.

I mean, sure. Totally.



Not sure about that last bit, but yes we do agree about truth in the context of propositions about objective states of affairs. I'll have to go back and see what the original claim had been. I was just chiming in out of context.

I'd prefer to use different words in relation to beauty, wisdom, justice and ethics. If "truth" has any meaning in those realms, it's borrowed and confusing. Now, to go back, read the original claim and see just how far off the mark I actually was.

(October 16, 2012 at 10:40 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: No truth relates to anything knowable or unknowable. Any proposition is either true or untrue. Simple logic really.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no truth that is unknowable.

Do you know exactly where the sun is, that is where the universe in which our sun is, is? Yet, you do know that the sun exists, do you not?

I consider truth to be that which causes influence. IE: The belief in Santa inspires children to behave good & put out milk & cookies Christmas Eve. A belief, even if it is not based in truth, can have true influence. To discover the cause of influence, it can be helpful to consider various perspectives that would have inspired such an influence.

---

(October 16, 2012 at 11:09 am)whateverist Wrote: The truth of any proposition is dependent on its correspondence to objective reality. Of course propositions, true or otherwise, are only meaningful for subjects .. which have only ever been observed in bodies, which again are objects.

"Truth" is only a meaningful category for subjects. As subjects who create a mental description of the world, we have reason to care where that description fits or falls short. Truth is all about the fit.

That'll be two cents please.

(Pulling out 2 cents and some fuzz for you.)
I agree and that was well worth the cost.

Einstein helped us realize this idea of relativity, although we have more to understand. I still struggle with understanding how space and time would apply or not if the sun were somehow wiped from our solar system.

Going back to "why am I me" - you could also ask, who is the "I" we refer to... is it the cells that regenerate in my body ever 7 years or so - or is it my thoughts... what? Also, how "am" I able to exist? My parents had intercourse, as did their parents - on & on... maybe there was some evolution... going back in time further - how did this earth come to exist? Where is this earth - in the solar system - in the universe - but where is the universe?

In terms of the body replacing itself, I think the 'me' part would be the mind. Unlike other cells in the body, brain cells are not regenerated. New connections are made as new memories and thoughts appear, but the cells themselves largely remain the same. As for "why am I me?", I would have to say that genetics and environmental factors shape the personality early in life, and continuing experience continues to shape it into early adulthood (not to say older adults can't change, but it is less likely that they will be open to significant change).

(October 20, 2012 at 11:18 am)Comprehender Wrote: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that there is no truth that is unknowable.

There are unknowable things. Any proposition about said things would be true or false depending only on how well the proposition describes objective reality. This would not be dependant on how we might feel about the proposition or our perspective.

(October 20, 2012 at 11:18 am)Comprehender Wrote: I consider truth to be that which causes influence. IE: The belief in Santa inspires children to behave good & put out milk & cookies Christmas Eve. A belief, even if it is not based in truth, can have true influence. To discover the cause of influence, it can be helpful to consider various perspectives that would have inspired such an influence.

What you said makes no sense to me and I don't see what it has to do with truth. To me truth is simply a set including all propositions that are true. Nothing noodly about it, just simple propositions that are true i.e. Santa is not magic, or wheels are round.

(October 20, 2012 at 11:18 am)Comprehender Wrote: Do you know exactly where the sun is, that is where the universe in which our sun is, is? Yet, you do know that the sun exists, do you not?

Sure, 92,960,000 miles away from here, give or take a few depending on the time of day. Distance is measured in a manner that is relevant to two points and an agreed upon standard of division between them.

Say the statement was "the sun (point a) is exactly 40 miles(agreed upon standard of division) from the edge of the universe (point b). It would be true or false regardless of whether or not we had (or even could) measure it.
(entertaining the notion of the edge of the universe for the lulz)

@ Rhizo, how do you know that there are unknowable things? I would concede easily that there are unknown things, but there's a line between unknown and unknowable, wouldn't you agree?