RE: A question about Truth
May 3, 2014 at 9:04 am
(This post was last modified: May 3, 2014 at 10:14 am by Coffee Jesus.)
(April 30, 2014 at 1:16 am)JuliaL Wrote: I contend there are at least three observations which deny us direct access:
1) There is a processing lag in consciousness. Reality may have moved on
2) There is a lag in information transit across space
3) Our observations of reality could be counterfeited
Our brain states are part of reality. If our brain states are mind, as the available evidence seems to suggest, then brain states a part of reality that we have direct access to.
To 2), This is why I suspect that mental states occupy intervals in time rather than distinct points in time, but I digress.
(April 30, 2014 at 1:16 am)JuliaL Wrote: As a result, I would like to propose an alternative definition for the community to critique.
Truth is a property of propositions whose magnitude varies in direct proportion with how well the propositions serve to accurately have predicted the future once it arrives.
An unfortunate corollary of this definition is that nothing is currently true. It can only have been proved to be true at some future time.
You could say "that accurately predict events before they occurr", then use frequentist probability to argue that those which have predicted accurately so far will likely continue to predict accurately. Though this means we have to rely on memory to ascertain truth. Why should you trust your memory? Why should you even trust that there ever was a past?
Can you justify trust in your memories without simultaneously justifying a belief in external reality? If not, then your point about reality not being directly accessible is moot.
I have to make some assumptions before I can justly believe that I'm currently having a conversation, a conversation with another aware being. If any assumptions are necessary to justify this belief, then we might as well take them for granted in our language.
