The Truth of Relativism Based On Mathematical Concepts

Astrocyte
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

But were not assessing the value of broccoli at just one level (how it tastes), but can also recognize, through logic, that broccoli is good for you, so if you care about your health, it's in your interest to eat it.

But that's still relative though. What's good for the human may not be good for a dog (or some other animal). So the broccoli holds the potential to be a lot of things other than just your interpretation of it.

reply to post by Kashai


My thoughts are I like your way of thinking, but in order to include other views, a Monotheistic God would have to first accept them - basically I do like this. However a monotheist God who doesn't accept other views besides His own even though they are there can be destructive.

In addition, even if things did work out, there would still be a Pantheon of Gods below Him representing different aspects of life.

The Monotheist God you are talking about is not the God the Christian's of today worship (which may or may not be the real God of Christians), because It doesn't accept many different ways of life that are present in our society, and even many scientific facts that He should know about if He was the Creator.

So at least in this case, the current Christian God seems to be an Impostor.

smithjustinb

Astrocyte
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

But were not assessing the value of broccoli at just one level (how it tastes), but can also recognize, through logic, that broccoli is good for you, so if you care about your health, it's in your interest to eat it.

But that's still relative though. What's good for the human may not be good for a dog (or some other animal). So the broccoli holds the potential to be a lot of things other than just your interpretation of it.

There is cause-and-effect here - the Broccoli is good for you (is it?) and if you care about your health it is in your interest to eat it. Good example. However one thing, do you care about your health? You are free to decide this, and make an informed decision to eat pizza if you have different priorities, but there are natural consequences.

At any rate, I like the pure things you mention, Astro - true Atheism, how I see it. So I'm going to try to isolate some things that I think could be relative while still falling in the realm of healthy thinking - let's see.

Whether or not someone likes the taste of broccoli is relative. So if your neighbor doesn't like the taste of broccoli, for example, you might consider that and bring them steak.

-----

Now when there is a lot of dualistic thinking going on - this bad, that good - which is very simplistic and not advanced, however does make up many different people's thoughts, relative delusionary states become important and it becomes important to be able to accept other delusionary states, I think.

Come to think of it, they could just be sets of a lot of "likes" and "dislikes" being confused for "good" and "bad."

It's all really a mess at this point, but in this respect the O.P. sets up a situation where one is allowed their worldview (presumably if it harms others karma would come into effect somehow) and to interact with others with different ones - a good idea, definitely a good thing to strive for.

You don't have to kill or destroy what you don't like. There is some wisdom for you.

reply to post by smithjustinb

Choose to.

Why? How will it improve my life? What would I gain from choosing ignorance?

What have you gained from it?

And why haven't you answered the other two questions? Afraid of the truth? Is that what makes a relativist?

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


The universe is not holographic. That hypothesis has been eliminated by the latest cosmological data.

Astyanax
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Greetings, relativist.

Would you like to be know whether something stated is true or false?

Could you re-word this please? It makes no sense the way its written.

Likewise, would you like to know whether some action is right or wrong?

I dont understand what you're trying to ask. Would I like to know? Ive already determined that there is no such thing as right vs. wrong. Why would I like to know more about what I dont believe in?

Astyanax
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Choose to.

Why? How will it improve my life? What would I gain from choosing ignorance?

What have you gained from it?

And why haven't you answered the other two questions? Afraid of the truth? Is that what makes a relativist?

You dont have to be insulting. Calm down.

I enjoy seeing the world the way I see the world. So I've gained satisfaction.

reply to post by Astrocyte

Why the epistemological limitation? Why is the universe only responsible for physical conditions, and not the mental conditions which arise from it's most remarkable physical organism? Why should our perception of truth be treated as something extraneous to universal phenomenology? THAT sounds like nonsense to me. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I never said that nor implied that. What I said was that knowledge is a human affair, that it is metaphor, that it doesn't occur across the entire universe, it isn't "discovered", it is created. Truth, knowledge and laws are entirely relative to the species. Truth and falsity exist only in our propositions. That does not mean the propositions do not correspond to phenomenon.

There's nothing golden or rule-like about the golden rule. It is a human convention and platitude, and only true insofar as man decides that it is. It permeates all cultures because it corresponds to something human's are prone to do. Murder, violence and crime also permeates all cultures; that doesn't mean there's some dark rule or fundamental law and truth that they are following.

Astyanax
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

The universe is not holographic. That hypothesis has been eliminated by the latest cosmological data.

The notion of a true holographic universe is absurd. So I am sure it goes without saying that reality is not a holograph.

That being said....the mantra of "as above, so below" is a simple way of referencing a holographic nature to reality.

reply to post by smithjustinb

But that's still relative though. What's good for the human may not be good for a dog (or some other animal). So the broccoli holds the potential to be a lot of things other than just your interpretation of it.

It's relative, but not in an absolute sense.

Truth exists in relation to context. In the case of broccoli, all human beings will benefit from eating it. So, as an equation, truth could be described as T = I + C. That is, Individual + Context = truth. When I have information about an individual thing, be it myself, someone else, or a particular object, and combine that information with environmental information (the context), I can arrive at a position of truth.

So a dog may not be able to digest grapes, onions, or chocolate, which means, for a dog, it is a truth for that creature (though mostly unrecognized by dogs) that grapes and chocolate will make them sick, whereas for us, it is a delicious snack.

Do you understand? The relevance of what broccoli means for a dog is IRRELEVANT to the human relationship with broccoli. For US, the relationship is one of "it is good to eat". And it is a TRUTH.

reply to post by Aphorism

I never said that nor implied that.

Actually, if you read what you wrote, you are in fact implying it.

What I said was that knowledge is a human affair, that it is metaphor, that it doesn't occur across the entire universe, it isn't "discovered", it is created.

See? You're drawing a distinction between truth "out there" in the universe and truth "in here" in the human mind. You've basically put the one truth in a higher category than the other truth, even though, basically, they are both facts of reality. The former may exist out there, but keep in mind it also needs the existence of a knowing mind to make its properties known. As for truth as a "creation" of the human mind: keep in mind that it is a creation forced by necessity. It is inevitable that truths of value become recognized and promulgated by the human mind, which, as I said, is historically evinced in every major culture the world over.

There's nothing golden or rule-like about the golden rule. It is a human convention and platitude, and only true insofar as man decides that it is.

So, again, it doesn't matter that social scientists are increasingly recognizing the interdependence between Self and society, mind with other minds? It's a fact of developmental psychology that Self is born via the process of interacting with other selves. There's a whole field that studies this phenomenon called "intersubjectivty".

And yet the golden rule is a "platitude" and "only true insofar as man decides it is"? That is utter and complete nonsense. Human emotionality is the basis of our being. Our inherent vulnerability - and even our negative adaptations to a mean/mindless world - derive from the fact that we are so incredibly sensitive to one another's emotional states.

Even contemporary affective neuroscience is showing how fundamentally emotional human beings are. Jaak Panksepp (a brilliant neuroscientist) has show through countless studies that our tertiary "cognitive processes" are an evolutionary accretion to a "paleomammalian brain" which all mammals share. He's outlined 7 basic emotional "drives" that all mammals experience in relation to their immediate environment: SEEKING (he capitalizes each type to indicate it's "system" quality within the brain), RAGE, LUST, FEAR, CARE, PLAY and GRIEF, each emotional type supporting some sort of adaptation to environmental situations.

If we define at the outset was is good for human beings, it becomes increasingly clear that the only way we can actually achieve these goals is by adhering to the golden rule: that is, paying attention to the socioemotional information in interactions, and acting in a way that supports connection, and minimizes disconnection.

darkbake
reply to post by Kashai

 

My thoughts are I like your way of thinking, but in order to include other views, a Monotheistic God would have to first accept them - basically I do like this. However a monotheist God who doesn't accept other views besides His own even though they are there can be destructive.

In addition, even if things did work out, there would still be a Pantheon of Gods below Him representing different aspects of life.

The Monotheist God you are talking about is not the God the Christian's of today worship (which may or may not be the real God of Christians), because It doesn't accept many different ways of life that are present in our society, and even many scientific facts that He should know about if He was the Creator.

So at least in this case, the current Christian God seems to be an Impostor.

edit on 11amFri, 11 Apr 2014 04:48:47 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

My thinking that is that God as offered in Christianity is a personification to some extent, consider that in the days when modern religions began historically.

No one seemed to have any ideas as the conclusions formed today as to the expanse of all of reality.

Not that we necessarily have one today but in relation to the potential of life, in respect to what we do know today,it is much different that was understood then.

Further, we should consider that God would be more than 4D and in regard to 10D the perspective would be all possible outcomes in all possible orientations to any object that exist (in potential and as described in the movie I posted earlier this thread).

One way of looking at it is that God is an entity that is everything+ in some altogether way.

reply to post by Astrocyte

Actually, if you read what you wrote, you are in fact implying it.

See? You're drawing a distinction between truth "out there" in the universe and truth "in here" in the human mind. You've basically put the one truth in a higher category than the other truth, even though, basically, they are both facts of reality. The former may exist out there, but keep in mind it also needs the existence of a knowing mind to make its properties known. As for truth as a "creation" of the human mind: keep in mind that it is a creation forced by necessity. It is inevitable that truths of value become recognized and promulgated by the human mind, which, as I said, is historically evinced in every major culture the world over.

Actually, and factually, I never implied anything of the sort. I said it isn't out there. I would argue that it is you making an unnecessary distinction between one truth and another. I was speaking about one kind of truth. Saying where something isn't doesn't make it distinct from what it is. There's no "other truth". Consequently, they are not “both facts of reality”.

Yes I do agree we make certain value judgements. However I would inverse your ideas just to see what falls out. I wouldn’t call them “truths of value”, but more values of truth. “Truth” is an entirely honorific term we apply to certain propositions. I’ll illustrate:

Which scenario is more likely?

Scenario 1:
Subject A and Subject B look at the stars on dark evening.
Subject A speaks: “Those stars are true”.
Subject B speaks: Subject B is unable to respond.

Scenario 2:
Subject A and Subject B look at the stars on a dark evening.
Subject A speaks: “Those stars are beautiful”.
Subject B speaks: “That is true.”

The point is we don’t look at horses and say “horses are true or false”. Only statements and propositions about horses are true or false.

So, again, it doesn't matter that social scientists are increasingly recognizing the interdependence between Self and society, mind with other minds? It's a fact of developmental psychology that Self is born via the process of interacting with other selves. There's a whole field that studies this phenomenon called "intersubjectivty".

And yet the golden rule is a "platitude" and "only true insofar as man decides it is"? That is utter and complete nonsense. Human emotionality is the basis of our being. Our inherent vulnerability - and even our negative adaptations to a mean/mindless world - derive from the fact that we are so incredibly sensitive to one another's emotional states.

Even contemporary affective neuroscience is showing how fundamentally emotional human beings are. Jaak Panksepp (a brilliant neuroscientist) has show through countless studies that our tertiary "cognitive processes" are an evolutionary accretion to a "paleomammalian brain" which all mammals share. He's outlined 7 basic emotional "drives" that all mammals experience in relation to their immediate environment: SEEKING (he capitalizes each type to indicate it's "system" quality within the brain), RAGE, LUST, FEAR, CARE, PLAY and GRIEF, each emotional type supporting some sort of adaptation to environmental situations.

If we define at the outset was is good for human beings, it becomes increasingly clear that the only way we can actually achieve these goals is by adhering to the golden rule: that is, paying attention to the socioemotional information in interactions, and acting in a way that supports connection, and minimizes disconnection.

The “Human emotionality is basis of our being”. I hope I'm not too impolite in saying it is the most vacuous statement I've ever heard. Yes, humans are emotional, if that’s your point. Is this the extent of neuroscience? The golden rule is a platitude plain and simple. It doesn’t even need to be stated. If someone—no worse—if a society needs such a rule to adhere to, then I would argue that that little platitude isn’t going to help. In fact, if it has been "evinced" for thousands of years and in every culture and religion already, I could just as easily say the current state of affairs is a direct result of the golden rule, and enough evidence to plead a case against it.

And these 7 basic emotional drives... I understand the need to articulate certain facets of something we study, but looking at it from a philosophical distance, these are only drives insofar as we notice the affects of our own body, which is never entirely limited to certain small areas in single organs. I mean, where does the brain and the body meet? is a better question. Neuroscience should stick to biology.

That being said, apart from the jargon, I do entirely agree with your idea of realizing the otherness (for lack of a better term) of other selves, and to realize the self in them...is true and not false. Two completely opposed methods of thought, in the end, reconcile at the same conclusion. So perhaps not relativism, but perspectivism, is the best course of action where different people are concerned.

I love this type of thread, guys.

smithjustinb

there is no absolute truth.

Then why make absolute statements such as this?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Indeed. Moral Relativism is logically less tenable than agnosticism, insomuch as a state of indecision includes all possibilities, where moral relativism treats truth as relative besides, of course, the truth of moral relativism.

Life is far more complex and paradoxical than people are willing to acknowledge. You have people way on the left who think something as frankly idiotic as moral relativism, fundamentally sticking to that position while ignoring all information that contradicts that epistemological bias, and then you have people with rigid beliefs such as computational theory of mind, who treat the mind as nothing more than a symbol machine. Clearly, this picture does not meet reality IN ITS FULLNESS.

If there's one thinker who has really piqued my fancy, that would be Ian Mcgilchrist. Mcgilchrist reduces the issue to the basic differences between the left hemisphere and the right hemisphere. Afterall, the brain is how we see the world. Function does somewhat correlate with structure, and as the brains hemispheres differ in structure, so to does the brains hemispheres differ in functioning.

The left hemisphere provides us with useful and compelling THEORIES for whats going on within the world. Computational mind theory, for example, discusses the relationship between adaptations in behavior that support "perpetuation" of genes over time. Ways of thinking thinking that enhance survivability are "selected", while those that don't die off. This is all thought of as an informational exchange.

That said, life isn't actually just an informational exchange. That is a DEAD way of thinking about things. Life is also about a flow of ENERGY across time.

This difference of perspective is vital to the question of existence. Nobody knows. Someone like Steven Pinker would argue that a position of skepticism - and agnosticism - about things "we cannot see" should take precedence to views like the inherent contradictions between energy and information, and the different ways, fundamentally, that the brains hemispheres cause us to think about the world. The neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor, for example, after suffering a stroke in her left temporal lobe, experienced first hand the "energy" nature of the world when the left hemispheres "particularistic" way of processing shuts down.

Reality indeed cannot be squared with what were able to represent to ourselves. Math is not reality - it is modelling of it. Information may exist, but it seems ancillary to the fact of natures nonlinear way of functioning.

I think the more humble position is to "accept opposites". Use what is useful, but do not cling to it as if it were the only thing way we can know the world.

reply to post by Astrocyte


What would the Tao look like in four dimensions?

reply to post by Aphorism

Actually, and factually, I never implied anything of the sort. I said it isn't out there. I would argue that it is you making an unnecessary distinction between one truth and another.

You're describing two different kinds of truth. I never made the distinction: you did.

As for what else you've said, I sense you're letting logic lead you to absurd conclusions about reality.

Yes I do agree we make certain value judgements. However I would inverse your ideas just to see what falls out. I wouldn’t call them “truths of value”, but more values of truth. “Truth” is an entirely honorific term we apply to certain propositions.

Were completely talking past each other.

In any case, does it in any way bother you that these sort of ideas - which ignore the value laden nature of reality and human relations - lead to fractious and disordered realities? Or does your desire to think and think and think, until all concept of value is broken down, take precedence to what is mutually beneficial to the largest number of people?

In my opinion, thinking entails responsibility. We should define the values we want to inculcate in ourselves - and therefore in society - so that the world can be made a better place, with less stress, with less suffering, with more happiness, and more meaningful relationships.

From what I understand so far, you're thinking is essentially very self focused and unconcerned about the consequences of your thinking. And if there occur unseemly consequences, you negate their importance and reality by more thinking.

The “Human emotionality is basis of our being”. I hope I'm not too impolite in saying it is the most vacuous statement I've ever heard

See? Thanks for proving my point. That - that! is the most vacuous statement you've ever heard? Really!? Of all the crazy nonsense you've ever been exposed to in your life, the idea that emotion, feeling - and thus value - underlies our cognitive processes, THAT, seems to be the most vacuous thing you've ever heard?

That energy which compelled you to believe that, and then write that: i'd like to say thank you to it for proving my point, that emotion slings around our thinking like a puppet.

Cognitions, via a process called mentalization, can learn to regulate how emotions function and manifest. But we cannot take absolute control of emotion. Even at it's most quiet, it heuristically biases our judgements toward views that correlate with our most comforting perspective. The one that essentially correlates with the temperament we've cultivated in life.

I wouldn't be surprised if any view which puts the needs and views of the Self above that of the collective to be one undergirded by a preverbal history of relational trauma. Traumatology - a field which includes clinical and research psychology - has much to say about this. Early difficulties in primary relationships i.e. with the mother, establish models of being and seeing the world that correspond with those early life patterns of being and relating with the primary caregiver. It is a remarkably powerful force. For example, adult attachment interviews predict results in strange situations studies at a rate of 75% - obviously indicating that the emotional-cognitive patterns of the parent become imprinted on the functioning of the child in the process of relating.

If someone—no worse—if a society needs such a rule to adhere to, then I would argue that that little platitude isn’t going to help. In fact, if it has been "evinced" for thousands of years and in every culture and religion already, I could just as easily say the current state of affairs is a direct result of the golden rule, and enough evidence to plead a case against it.

That's just a bunch of specious nonsense. The problems with society are not the result of the golden rule, come on! As if promotion of a certain type of behavior - A GOOD code of behavior - would be the cause of the problems in this world, as opposed to, say, the lack of openness that exists between individuals i.e. a lack of awareness, and attention, to the inner worlds that conceal the various feelings that we all experience in our day to day life.

Rianne Eisler, for example, makes a good point that the problems that exist in society are largely the product of an androcentric way of seeing things. It's a plausible theory, since, humanity is made up of 2 sexes, and the 2 sexes feel and experience the world in dimorphic ways; the female sex is more sensitive and cooperative (an effect of estrogen) whereas the male sex is more aggressive and competitive (an effect of testosterone). Perhaps if we mindfully choose to foster and develop empathy in our youth (already happening with programs like MindUP and The Roots of Empathy in various schools systems worldwide) - the felt sense - the idea of the golden rule will not merely be something that is intuitively recognized but seldom adhered to in action - but a verity of human social relations. Whether it emerges after an experience or before is irrelevant. The fact is people come to the same conclusion at a well above chance rate. If it cannot be called a truth, as an absolute fact of logic, it is treated as a truth; and since it's treated as a truth by so many people, the world over, it's a truth that derives it's trueness from being a commonly experienced reality.

Neuroscience should stick to biology.

And philosophy should recognize that all of it's philosophizing is based on events in the brain - a brain that has been shaped and honed by evolutionary processes, leading from reptiles, to mammals, and then primates: our brain evidences these grades in its neural architecture. It's therefore highly plausible that the brains structure is triune, as animals developed, the brain got "larger" to accommodate more complex ways of being and relating (the move from reptiles to mammals, which involved more complex socializing, which is evident in limbic structures, and then mammals to primates, which have more developed frontal and temporal areas).

Two completely opposed methods of thought, in the end, reconcile at the same conclusion

So does that mean you agree that the golden rule deserves to promoted?

reply to post by Astrocyte

You're describing two different kinds of truth. I never made the distinction: you did.

As for what else you've said, I sense you're letting logic lead you to absurd conclusions about reality.

I was describing truth as it is, and truth as it isn’t. That is still one kind of truth.

Were completely talking past each other.

In any case, does it in any way bother you that these sort of ideas - which ignore the value laden nature of reality and human relations - lead to fractious and disordered realities? Or does your desire to think and think and think, until all concept of value is broken down, take precedence to what is mutually beneficial to the largest number of people?

In my opinion, thinking entails responsibility. We should define the values we want to inculcate in ourselves - and therefore in society - so that the world can be made a better place, with less stress, with less suffering, with more happiness, and more meaningful relationships.

From what I understand so far, you're thinking is essentially very self focused and unconcerned about the consequences of your thinking. And if there occur unseemly consequences, you negate their importance and reality by more thinking.

Ideas are not any reality. I think that’s where you’re very wrong. The way you value nature does not correspond to the other ways people value nature, and this a part of realizing the otherness of other people. People don’t think the same. But what happens when both parties see their own ideas as reality, yet both are in contradiction? In our case, simple disagreement and debate. In the case of fundamentalists? That’s where it gets a little scary.

I prefer those who lead by example and not those who lead by idea myself. I think the sort of diagnosing of others based on their thoughts you seem to take part in often neglects the essential human being, limiting it to what he thinks, but all is fine and dandy as long as it is in accordance with a number of personal and self-centered biases. I find that there are no consequences of thinking. There is only consequences of action. People can think how, when, and what they wish. Anything less than that is totalitarianism.

In my opinion, there are no excuses. Perhaps we should be honest for once and speak about things honestly. That is all I try to do. There is really no need to sugar coat things, hang on to ancient traditions, or pile on the euphemism.

See? Thanks for proving my point. That - that! is the most vacuous statement you've ever heard? Really!? Of all the crazy nonsense you've ever been exposed to in your life, the idea that emotion, feeling - and thus value - underlies our cognitive processes, THAT, seems to be the most vacuous thing you've ever heard?

That energy which compelled you to believe that, and then write that: i'd like to say thank you to it for proving my point, that emotion slings around our thinking like a puppet.

The statement was truly vacuous. I apologize. The “emotionality of our being”? I had no clue what you were talking about because it is entirely empty of meaningful content. You never said anything about emotions, feelings and value underlying our cognitive processes, which I may have had a chance to consider and understand. You said “the emotionality of our being”.

That's just a bunch of specious nonsense. The problems with society are not the result of the golden rule, come on! As if promotion of a certain type of behavior - A GOOD code of behavior - would be the cause of the problems in this world, as opposed to, say, the lack of openness that exists between individuals i.e. a lack of awareness, and attention, to the inner worlds that conceal the various feelings that we all experience in our day to day life.

Well the good of society is not the result of the golden rule either. That is just as nonsensical as the opposite. It’s a platitude. It’s a cliché.

And philosophy should recognize that all of it's philosophizing is based on events in the brain - a brain that has been shaped and honed by evolutionary processes, leading from reptiles, to mammals, and then primates: our brain evidences these grades in its neural architecture. It's therefore highly plausible that the brains structure is triune, as animals developed, the brain got "larger" to accommodate more complex ways of being and relating (the move from reptiles to mammals, which involved more complex socializing, which is evident in limbic structures, and then mammals to primates, which have more developed frontal and temporal areas).

Such a statement is also vacuous. I apologize, but saying thinking is based on events in the brain is entirely abstract and should have no place in science. No thinking has ever occurred without the entire body working in uniform.

So does that mean you agree that the golden rule deserves to promoted?

I don't mind if it is promoted, as long as they are fine with promoting platitude and cliché.

reply to post by Aphorism


Everything humans experience with the common senses is the result of internal representations. As an example the human eye processes information related to photons entering it then sends that information to the brain. This generates an image in the brain that the consciousness relates to as sight. This image is a representation of what is "out their".

In relation to it being a representation of what exist. Admittedly science offers that what we perceive constitutes as small percentage of what is apparent. Beyond the common senses, all sorts of things seem to be happening. At issue is whether our capacity to experience is transcendent, in frame, from what is observable to date as a whole. Not just simply in relation to what the common senses can perceive.

Clearly and in the sense of religion. A point has been, that reality has elements to it that are outside the common senses.

Any thoughts?