The Truth; You Exist

[FallentoReason]

---

The worry can be put as follows. According to orthodox Darwinism, the process of evolution is driven mainly by two mechanisms: random genetic mutation and natural selection. The former is the chief source of genetic variability; by virtue of the latter, a mutation resulting in a heritable, fitness-enhancing trait is likely to spread through that population and be preserved as part of the genome. It is fitness-enhancing behavior and traits that get rewarded by natural selection; what get penalized are maladaptive traits and behaviors. In crafting our cognitive faculties, natural selection will favor cognitive faculties and processes that result in adaptive behavior; it cares not a whit about true belief (as such) or about cognitive faculties that reliably give rise to true belief. As evolutionary psychologist Donald Sloan Wilson puts it, “the well-adapted mind is ultimately an organ of survival and reproduction” (Wilson 2002, 228). What our minds are for (if anything) is not the production of true beliefs, but the production of adaptive behavior: that our species has survived and evolved at most guarantees that our behavior is adaptive; it does not guarantee or even make it likely that our belief-producing processes are for the most part reliable, or that our beliefs are for the most part true. That is because our behavior could perfectly well be adaptive, but our beliefs false as often as true. Darwin himself apparently worried about this question: “With me,” says Darwin,

the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind? (Darwin 1887)

We can briefly state Darwin's doubt as follows. Let R be the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, N the proposition that naturalism is true and E the proposition that we and our cognitive faculties have come to be by way of the processes to which contemporary evolutionary theory points us: what is the conditional probability of R on N&E? I.e., what is P(R | N&E)? Darwin fears it may be rather low.

We can state the argument schematically as follows:

1. P(R | N&E) is low.
2. Anyone who accepts N&E and sees that (1) is true has a defeater for R.
3. Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any other belief she holds, including N&E itself.
Therefore

Anyone who accepts N&E and sees that (1) is true has a defeater for N&E; hence N&E can't be rationally accepted.

Source: Plantinga (I'm pretty sure)

---

Evolution and natural selection don’t care about what the truth is. We did not evolve to be able to comprehend what the truth is, but merely have the right tools just for survival. This raises the question of whether we are capable of actually knowing the truth. This can be expressed as the probability that (R | N&E) is true, which seems quite low. Therefore we are almost inclined to accept that our cognitive faculties don’t have the capabilities of knowing the truth.

From a perspective of pure reasoning, we can in fact demonstrate that our cognitive faculties are indeed capable of comprehending the truth, regardless of N&E. We can show this by the hypothetical case that if something, deemed X, is X and can also be non-X, then the truth does not exist. This is so because one cannot state the truth about the nature of X. This line of reasoning refutes itself as it shows that the argument itself is found to be true. Therefore we have shown that a) the truth exists and b) one derived this conclusion through one’s cognitive faculties. Therefore, one can comprehend the truth.

Something to realise is that although we are able to comprehend the truth, this doesn’t necessarily mean we know that we actually know the truth. For example, let’s assume that the sun has just imploded. My cognitive faculties would tell me that the sun is actually still there because the light hasn’t reached my eyes. Therefore, I don’t have sufficient information to be able to know that the sun has just imploded. Therefore, I don’t know that I don’t know the truth. I know only of the apparent truth. So, if our ability to know that we definitely know the truth is impaired by the information we receive, what can be said about our entire experience of reality? How much do we really know that is actually true? This throws into question one’s ability to know what we know is actually true.

Rene Descartes became aware of this problem and therefore started questioning his very own existence. He realised that by default there is one thing that he knew for certain to be true beyond doubt. It was in fact, his existence; ‘I think, therefore I am’. He realised that the very fact that he was able to think about whether he existed or not must mean he exists. This serves as the starting point of what one knows to be 100% true. As for the rest of reality, it seems we are at the mercy of the universe.

[NoMoreFaith]

You should have taken the blue pill.

[FallentoReason]

You should have taken the blue pill.

I believe we all have a certain dose of the blue pill in our blood stream. Do I know that I know it's true? No, but I don't know if I can know for sure it's not true

---

I think we are shifting from the topic here. Do you not consider reality to have an objective value?

From my OP here, I am implying that there is an objective truth, but I don't know for sure if I'm observing the actually objective truth for certain sometimes.

Knowledge before observation? When you say the sun hasn't imploded, that statement refers to 8 minutes ago. Its like, looking at the newspaper and saying that what is written is happening now. Its not happening now, it happened yesterday. In case of the sun, you can get away with it under normal circumstances because what was true 8 minutes ago is also true now.

I'm not sure if we're agreeing completely or completely disagreeing here. I'll rephrase what I meant by the sun imploding:

The sun just imploded. Tell me, what do you observe right now? The truth about the sun 8 minutes late. For the next 8 minutes you will be telling me the false statement that the sun imploded, without knowing it until you observe it. Therefore, we cannot know for sure the state of the sun instantaneously because our observations were true 8 minutes ago.

[genkaus]

Evolution and natural selection don’t care about what the truth is. We did not evolve to be able to comprehend what the truth is, but merely have the right tools just for survival. This raises the question of whether we are capable of actually knowing the truth. This can be expressed as the probability that (R | N&E) is true, which seems quite low. Therefore we are almost inclined to accept that our cognitive faculties don’t have the capabilities of knowing the truth.

From a perspective of pure reasoning, we can in fact demonstrate that our cognitive faculties are indeed capable of comprehending the truth, regardless of N&E. We can show this by the hypothetical case that if something, deemed X, is X and can also be non-X, then the truth does not exist. This is so because one cannot state the truth about the nature of X. This line of reasoning refutes itself as it shows that the argument itself is found to be true. Therefore we have shown that a) the truth exists and b) one derived this conclusion through one’s cognitive faculties. Therefore, one can comprehend the truth.

I think we are in agreement upto this point. While we can know the truth, its not necessary that we always do know the truth.

Something to realise is that although we are able to comprehend the truth, this doesn’t necessarily mean we know that we actually know the truth. For example, let’s assume that the sun has just imploded. My cognitive faculties would tell me that the sun is actually still there because the light hasn’t reached my eyes. Therefore, I don’t have sufficient information to be able to know that the sun has just imploded. Therefore, I don’t know that I don’t know the truth. I know only of the apparent truth. So, if our ability to know that we definitely know the truth is impaired by the information we receive, what can be said about our entire experience of reality? How much do we really know that is actually true? This throws into question one’s ability to know what we know is actually true.

Rene Descartes became aware of this problem and therefore started questioning his very own existence. He realised that by default there is one thing that he knew for certain to be true beyond doubt. It was in fact, his existence; ‘I think, therefore I am’. He realised that the very fact that he was able to think about whether he existed or not must mean he exists. This serves as the starting point of what one knows to be 100% true. As for the rest of reality, it seems we are at the mercy of the universe.

While I agree with most of it, I'd question this one "our ability to know that we definitely know the truth is impaired by the information we receive".

I think you'd agree that the information we get correctly corresponds to the state of things as they actually were when it was created. That is, 8 minutes ago, the sun actually was how we are perceiving it now. So, while there may be delay in transmission, alterations in the information on its way (such a the sun is not actually yellow) and sometimes problems in perception, we still can mostly trust them.

But this does not mean that we are at the mercy of the universe because we can constantly keep checking the new information against the past one. We know that by its nature, reality doesn't contradict itself. So, once we have learned about the nature of an entity and we see that the information we are receiving now contradicts it, we do not accept it automatically, we check it against previous knowledge to correct either of them.

For example (and because the 8 minute gap is too short), suppose all humans have left the earth and are now inhabiting a planet 5000 light years away. Suppose they then observe the sun and see that, according to their perspective, the earth is still intact. By their previous observations, they know a few facts - that the earth would be destroyed in that phase and the sun is actually 5000 light years away. Now, because they are aware of the time delay in information, they can correctly state the current state of the earth - non-existent. Thus, our knowledge of reality is not completely at the mercy of universe.

---

I'm not sure if we're agreeing completely or completely disagreeing here. I'll rephrase what I meant by the sun imploding:

The sun just imploded. Tell me, what do you observe right now? The truth about the sun 8 minutes late. For the next 8 minutes you will be telling me the false statement that the sun imploded, without knowing it until you observe it. Therefore, we cannot know for sure the state of the sun instantaneously because our observations were true 8 minutes ago.

If the sun imploded right now and right now I see it and unimploded, I would be making a false statement for the next 8 minutes that the sun is just fine. However, knowledge about the 8 minute delay in leading to outdated information as well as any other perceptions regarding an imminent implosion, may allow me to correctly state "the sun has imploded", inspite of the current observation to the contrary.

[Welsh cake]

Well there's only the here and the now.

"I" didn't exist before I was conceived in my mother's womb.

"I" won't exist after I die.

"I" came from the void of oblivion and will return to it.

Kind of self-explanatory really...

[FallentoReason]

While I agree with most of it, I'd question this one "our ability to know that we definitely know the truth is impaired by the information we receive".

I think you'd agree that the information we get correctly corresponds to the state of things as they actually were when it was created. That is, 8 minutes ago, the sun actually was how we are perceiving it now. So, while there may be delay in transmission, alterations in the information on its way (such a the sun is not actually yellow) and sometimes problems in perception, we still can mostly trust them.

I'd say that the furthest we can go in knowing the truth is knowing the nature of the information that we are receiving. Like how we know that black holes distort the trajectort of light itself therefore we can know that our observations might not entirely reflect the truth.

For example (and because the 8 minute gap is too short), suppose all humans have left the earth and are now inhabiting a planet 5000 light years away. Suppose they then observe the sun and see that, according to their perspective, the earth is still intact. By their previous observations, they know a few facts - that the earth would be destroyed in that phase and the sun is actually 5000 light years away. Now, because they are aware of the time delay in information, they can correctly state the current state of the earth - non-existent. Thus, our knowledge of reality is not completely at the mercy of universe.

If the sun imploded right now and right now I see it and unimploded, I would be making a false statement for the next 8 minutes that the sun is just fine. However, knowledge about the 8 minute delay in leading to outdated information as well as any other perceptions regarding an imminent implosion, may allow me to correctly state "the sun has imploded", inspite of the current observation to the contrary.

Both times you have made the mistake of thinking you know that you know it's true because you understand the limitation imposed on us.

Let's go with the 8 minute delay again because it's a real life case. So we've established that the information we receive was true 8 minutes ago. Now, if we make the statement 'the sun just imploded then' what evidence do we have of this? The evidence confirming your baseless assertion is yet to come in 8 minutes. Therefore you can only think you know the truth but you won't know that you know the truth, if this statement was even correct. See the problem? You just won't know until after 8 minutes which will then either confirm the statement as true back then or false. It's impossible to know simultaneously that it imploded. You're at the mercy of time.

[The Grand Nudger]

The sun analogy may be failing as it is a predictive statement with known limitations and mechanics. When you say "the sun just imploded" you are actually making an attempt to predict the state of the sun in eight minutes time. We know this, we know why such a statement would be baseless (from the perspective of the observer on earth, or any transmission from a sattelite we have set in orbit -fun aside..we have a few-). You're probably going to need a murkier example for a workable analogy.

What is at the mercy of time here, is our ability to communicate the actual state of the sun from the best point of view (right on top of the damned thing) to an observer at great distance (earth).

[FallentoReason]

The sun analogy may be failing as it is a predictive statement with known limitations and mechanics. When you say "the sun just imploded" you are actually making an attempt to predict the state of the sun in eight minutes time.

.
No, when I say 'the sun just inploded' I literally mean right then and not in 8 minutes' time. What will happen in 8 minutes is that I will have the evidence to confirm or deny my statement about the sun that I made in the past.

We know this, we know why such a statement would be baseless (from the perspective of the observer on earth, or any transmission from a sattelite we have set in orbit -fun aside..we have a few-). You're probably going to need a murkier example for a workable analogy.

Agreed. I don't think genkaus agrees though.

I could use a murkier example, but all this example is showing is that I cannot rely on what I see right nowto know the truth right now. This is one type of limitation regarding the nature of light. So in the OP I'm basically asking 'well, so what other aspects of reality am I not perceiving correctly? What can I say with 100% certainty that I know that it's the truth?'

[The Grand Nudger]

The trouble with this as an analogy is that you are choosing something for which you have created a scenario that would exclude our ability to "know" in the manner you describe along fairly predictable lines. The analogy falls apart for the observer literally sitting on the sun, doesn't it? When this observer gives you the sitrep on what state the sun is in, he doesn't have to wait to see if it's true. He cannot communicate this to the observer on the earth any faster than the lightshow will reach the observer on earth, but this is not a limitation of his ability to know the state of the sun, nor is his ability to know the state of the sun at the "mercy" of the universe or time in the manner in which you have presented for the observer on the earth. Again, it's communication that is limited in this analogy, not "knowing".

[genkaus]

I'd say that the furthest we can go in knowing the truth is knowing the nature of the information that we are receiving. Like how we know that black holes distort the trajectort of light itself therefore we can know that our observations might not entirely reflect the truth.

That is where I disagree. By knowing how the information was altered, we can correct it for it and get closer to the truth.

Let's go with the 8 minute delay again because it's a real life case. So we've established that the information we receive was true 8 minutes ago. Now, if we make the statement 'the sun just imploded then' what evidence do we have of this? The evidence confirming your baseless assertion is yet to come in 8 minutes. Therefore you can only think you know the truth but you won't know that you know the truth, if this statement was even correct. See the problem? You just won't know until after 8 minutes which will then either confirm the statement as true back then or false. It's impossible to know simultaneously that it imploded. You're at the mercy of time.

Aren't you missing something? The only thing you can say about the 8 minute gap is that the information you are getting now is outdated by 8 minutes. It says nothing about the information yo already have.

Here, you ignored my statement about "any other perception regarding imminent implosion". Suppose, we know from the observation of other stars that exactly an hour before the implosion, the start turns blue. So, as soon as the sun turns blue, we start our timers and when there are less than 8 minutes left on the timer, we can safely say "the sun has imploded", even though we still see the blue sun in the sky and the visual confirmation of implosion is yet to come. That does not mean that our assertion was baseless or that it was impossible to know.