It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How do we know what the truth is?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
My understanding of the truth stems from the perception of being surrounded by lies, leading me into a state of fear and paranoia, and the truth is being able to perceive what the lies were designed to hide.




posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by NorEaster
 


i am actually starting to become insulted by your manner. do you honestly believe that you are the only person to ever fill up notebooks full of drawings and writings in an attempt to come up with a fully abstracted model of reality? the way that you toy with the people on this board (by asking questions that you already have solved to your own satisfaction, and then playing aloof as though you are actually interested in whatever anyone else has to say), smacks of a tortured and perpetually misunderstood teenager.


A teenager?

Do you understand the difference between trying to get a plausible explanation concerning a very specific issue and just tossing a topic out for people to paste their ideology's sales literature on? You must not be able to understand that difference. At least from what you're suggesting in this post of yours. it appears as though you don't. If I can't get a plausible answer to a question, then am I supposed to accept whatever answer I get? Is that how inquiry works?

I don't ask simple questions, and I don't expect to be chastised for not accepting insufficient or patently absurd answers. If you see that as toying with people, then you need to examine your own reasons for being on this board. I'm here to learn how other people who are interested in the same things that I'm interested in actually view those things. I want to learn from them exactly how they come upon their answers. I challenge them because it forces them to (possibly) examine how they came upon their view of things. It also exposes flawed thinking and logical fallacies, and those are the primary issues that we face in any field where the answers can't be placed on the table and opened up with a screwdriver or a scalpel.

You don't like that I take all of this seriously? Oh well. There are a lot of things that a lot of people don't like.


so, that being said, i find your use of the term "Absolute Logic" appalling. i think that it is the most basic flaw in your thinking. and if you continue to think in this manner, you will never become successful at solving the riddle of existence.


See, now this is exactly the kind of flawed thinking that has half the world thinking that the other half is either demonic or insane (depending on which half you're polling). If there is no immutable truth concerning anything at all, then all that exists - at all levels of existence - is subject to change at any given moment. While this may seem like a very liberating notion, if your electrons suddenly decided that they'd finally had enough of your sh*t - or even if only 1/3 of them banded together and took off for a better class of corporeal confluence - then you'd be pretty screwed.

Now, what makes you think that there's some kind of magic that keeps physical molecular matter from simply disbanding here and there, with all kinds of bizarre configurations emerging for a while and then reconfiguring as the molecules simply do whatever "truth" decides to allow - this non-absolute truth you believe is the only truth that exists - at a given instant? Is this what you see as God's day job? Convincing everything to stay with the program?

And you think that this kind of thinking gets anyone closer to the facts of reality as they exist?


it is simply not possible for anything such as "Absolute Logic" to exist, as this would require reality to be "built UP" from the bottom from perfect clarity to increasing levels of vagueness.


Guess what? Reality IS built from the bottom up. It really is. That's why you're made of the same kinds of electrons, protons and neutrons as me, and as a fish, and a rock, and the air that we breathe. Bottom-up is how that happens. Really. That's why your cells look a hell of a lot like my cells. Bottom-up development. What kind of bizarre world do you think we live in? Think about this one glitch in your view of reality. It's pretty striking.

Oh, and that "vagueness" you suggest.... That's complexity, and it's anything but vague. It's so precise that it intimidates you if you take the time to really analyze it. The sophistication of human consciousness is withering, as is the extreme nature of specificity that it presents as existential identity. The notion that consciousness - human or otherwise - is primordial is embarrassingly ludicrous. Consciousness is the most complex and sophisticated form of existence there is.


luckily, the most recent studies on the human brain and the nature of consciousness are showing that reality, as perceived by the human mind, is "built DOWN", starting at vagueness and only becoming more clear after repeated renderings. (drawing below depicts this type of detection algorithm)





...More generally, dynamic logic describes interaction between bottom-up and top-down signals (to simplify, signals from sensor organs, and signals from memory). Mental representations in memory, sources of top-down signals, are vague; during perception and cognition processes they interact with bottom-up signals, and evolve into crisp mental representations; crispness of the final states correspond to crispness of the bottom-up representations...

taken from THIS ARTICLE.




"reality, as perceived by the human mind,"

Let's look at this phrase for a moment. What does this phrase do - as a caveat - to the wonderful array of colorful diagrams that you shared with us? It takes reality - as in what's actually real - and transforms it (for the sake of your example) into perception (as perceived by the human mind), which is not at all the same as objective reality.

I'll let you examine that very small, but very critical phrase that your own excerpted text provided. This is the problem with non-critical thinking. You have to READ what you have sitting right in front of you. Words mean things. A lawyers would have a field day with that enormous loophole in your own presentation. The author (I assume this is directly quoted text) did not toss that phrase "reality, as perceived by the human mind" without a full understanding of what he was doing. Even if his implication throughout the rest of the article is to declare the human mind to be God itself, he covered his *ss technically with that statement in association with those diagrams. And he did so because he had to if he wanted those diagrams to not be a flip-chart on the Glenn Beck show for all the credibility they'd have. This is why I challenge the stuff that people present as factual truth. No one bothers to really look at what they accept as fact.


i really appreciate the monumental effort that you make to get people on this board to sharpen up their arguments. but i will caution you that your espoused infallability can be overturned in a heartbeat.


...best


Then overturn it. That's why I even bother to post here. I want someone to teach me something. I really do.

I want to learn from somebody, and not just that people don't bother to think anymore. I'm all set with that series of lessons. I'm also pretty up-to-date with the lessons about people's flaming need to be right at all costs. I'm totally schooled in people shifting the premise of a topic to somehow get their little slice of genius noticed and properly showcased. That part of the program couldn't have been better presented, although I already had years of training in that aspect of human nature before transferring to this academy.

Surprise me. Show me up and give me a good public flogging. But you better be capable of doing so by way of the veracity of your argument, and not by thinking that you can bully me.

See that dog in my avatar? His name was Frack. A 100 lb Doberman killer that my buddy Alan owned back in the 1980s. I watched that dog lead an attack on a large ringehound that walked too far up the road toward Al's Adirondack compound, and when he and his two mates were done, he carried the dog's entire hind leg back to Al as a trophy. And Frack's real training was in killing people, not dogs.

Me and Frack used to compete for a section of this big leather couch in the recording studio, where I spent more hours than I can remember, and generally slept short naps between tracking during marathon sessions that would last for days on end. Frack hated that I'd kick him off that couch when it was time to lay down, and he'd sit upright right there - right on the floor next to my face - and exhale in forceful bursts right into my face whenever he saw that I was starting to doze off. Just busting my nuts because I refused to let him intimidate me. I'd have to push him off many times before he'd finally give up for the night. I refused to be afraid of him.

I never let him win, and we both knew he could've killed me in a second. Eventually - after a few months of this sh*t - he accepted my dominance and we became pals. That photo is of one of the many time he had to go to the vets because he just wouldn't accept that a porcupine could have its way with him. He wasn't an easy dog to dominate. I keep that photo to remind me that no one on Earth can push me around. If I decide that it's worth it, then God help the idiot that thinks otherwise. Frack taught me this, and I'll honor that mangy killer forever for having done so.

So, take me down if you think you can. What I know, I really know. What I don't know, I'll freely admit to not knowing. And what I can learn, I want to learn. It's as simple as that.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Depends on whether the truth is a fact or a fiction.

Going in circles around some indeterminable center is healthy for human innovation and action, it stirs the psyche to identify with it, it propels one to great feats through the torment and elation of not being or finding exactly what it is, yet the outputs of energy produced help mankind. This drive for truth is what unity is made of by assimilating everything foreign into the accepted domain until by conversion or dominance the truth is accepted as a power able to create, alter, and protect itself. In this sense truth manifests itself, it lives and breathes.

As a fact it is sterile and perhaps mathematical. Like plastic it is too convenient and harmful to the environment. And ultimately that which stops the blood instead of quickening it has at it's core an orientation towards destruction.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
So, take me down if you think you can. What I know, I really know. What I don't know, I'll freely admit to not knowing. And what I can learn, I want to learn. It's as simple as that.



I only quoted your bottom line, but I thoroughly enjoyed your entire post.

At the moment, I am at a loss to remember a better presentation of objective thinking!





posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
You know the Truth by understanding that you will never know the Truth. This is the eternal understanding of enlightenment, Nirvana, Philosopher's Stone, whatever philosophy you go by... IAM that IAM.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Soke33
 




Thanks



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by American-philosopher
 


It is impossible to find truth on anything other than a personal level. Even then, we only have ourselves to validate what we believe to be true, and then we get into the obstacle of circular reasoning.

There may well be a universal or objective truth, but this is impossible to know, and once again, ultimately comes down to our personal experiences and opinions on what constitutes truth and whether we believe in a universal truth or not.

Like everything else, it is impossible to conclusively argue one way or the other, nor is it possible for one person's view on the subject to be any more accurate or valid than another's.


edit on 4-2-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
...Oh, and that "vagueness" you suggest.... That's complexity, and it's anything but vague....


i can think of nothing more vague than the human self or ego. is the ego not a result of the natural forces of reality?

any time the complexity of a system is integrated into a whole unit, the simplification required to do so is necessarily vague. so, in other words, you might try to describe your own self as a confangled cross linking of neural and sensory signals mediated by a coherent set of organ systems. or, you could just invoke the notion of "ME" and "my body".

both of these descriptions are equally valid. but the higher level description is more useful in discovering the meaning of the word "CAUSE". this is because all higher level descriptions are able to pass some version of "will" downward to their constituent parts. this is ultimately because reality is dictated by USEFULNESS and not TRUTHFULNESS.



....It takes reality - as in what's actually real - and transforms it (for the sake of your example) into perception (as perceived by the human mind), which is not at all the same as objective reality. ...


are the workings of human perception not as natural of an artifact as anything else? yes, they are. and so, the methods of perception can become a generalized description of reality.

what we are saying, then, is that causality is passed downward from whole units to smaller whole units. you can try to describe reality as being built up by coherent activity of smaller units, but you will never arrive at cause. because cause moves downward from higher units, it can also be said to move backward through time. logics are built in a forward time direction, and because of this, people that rely exclusively on logic will never come to a complete understanding of cause.

it may appear that i am not properly backing this up with evidence. this is because authoritative evidence has not yet been established scientifically. however, the usefulness of a top-down description of reality is incontrovertible. the author that i quoted previously is at the forefront of a scientific grassroots movement which will become essential as the next step of technological revolution and a proper "theory of everything".

i wrote a simple article myself about it. you can read it HERE. a diagram of the model i have set up, showing the backward movement of causality, is below:




...i hope this will be sufficient in establishing the validity of a counter-logical description of reality. a full treatise on this subject is beyond the scope of this thread.





posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


So it is immpossible for two people working on a project together to come to a new realization on something? What about scientist working together to figure out a cure come upon a new truth together on a certain formula. Is that at all possible?



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
For the curious beings called humans we have to have something prove to us for our pind s to accept it as truth. This may be why those sayings of "if a tree fall's in a forest and know one is around does it make a sound. This may be why we are so damn curious and why we have so many questions. This is the one thing that we all have innately and are born with couriousity!



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by American-philosopher
So it is immpossible for two people working on a project together to come to a new realization on something? What about scientist working together to figure out a cure come upon a new truth together on a certain formula. Is that at all possible?


Well, two or more people can come to an agreement on something being the truth, but in reality, they each came to the conclusion on an individual basis that is based on their own personal standards of truth.

Scientist A may find a new formula, suggest it to scientist B, and they agree that it is the best formula to find the truth on whatever project they are working on.

Scientist B didn't accept it as truth just because Scientist A believed it to be true, nor did Scientist A decide it was truthful just because Scientist B agreed with him upon it.

They both agreed upon it individually because it met their personal standards of finding the truth on the subject. The fact they both agreed was based upon their own individual opinions and the fact that their opinions coincided on this particular subject doesn't mean that they were in any inter-linked.

Also, the fact that both of them agreed doesn't change the truthfulness of their proposition, nor does it make their personal views any more or less objective.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by tgidkp

Originally posted by NorEaster
...Oh, and that "vagueness" you suggest.... That's complexity, and it's anything but vague....


i can think of nothing more vague than the human self or ego. is the ego not a result of the natural forces of reality?


The only thing vague is the term itself. Human Intellect (the conscious awareness of self in dynamic contextual juxtaposition with the environment that contains it) is extremely precise and contextually dense. Easily the most dense of all versions of dynamic information. The vagueness that you detect is the dynamic nature of it, and its capacity to be unpredictable as a whole - even as the physical nature of it is based on a well defined cause-effect progressive structure. The spontaneous dynamic nature of Intellect is one thing. The physical structure that allows it to come into existence is not vague or subjective. A good example is how you can choose to run, walk, skip or shuffle, but your legs and feet will still be made of the cells and the same consistent physical elements regardless of what you do with them. No one confuses the structure and the expression of the end result of that structure. Except when it comes to "ego" or what it actually is, the human intellect.


any time the complexity of a system is integrated into a whole unit, the simplification required to do so is necessarily vague. so, in other words, you might try to describe your own self as a confangled cross linking of neural and sensory signals mediated by a coherent set of organ systems. or, you could just invoke the notion of "ME" and "my body".


Descriptions are descriptions. They don't dictate reality. Read up on "holons". You'll likely get a lot out of what you find. It seems as if you're getting stranded in applying esoteric philosophical notions to the issue of defining the physical nature of structural reality. Holons are identified wholes, even if they are sub-assemblies or units pieces of a larger identifiable collective holon. An example would be

1. A person - holon
2. The family that person belongs to - holon
3. The community that family is part of - holon
4. The state that community is part of - holon
5. The nation that state is part of - holon
6. The world that nation is a part of - holon

All identified wholes, even though there are delineations within each sub-assembly as well as the end-whole. It's the fundamental nature of organized structure.


both of these descriptions are equally valid. but the higher level description is more useful in discovering the meaning of the word "CAUSE". this is because all higher level descriptions are able to pass some version of "will" downward to their constituent parts. this is ultimately because reality is dictated by USEFULNESS and not TRUTHFULNESS.


Again, you're suggesting that the creation of the end-whole is top-down, which simply isn't true. In the holon example, the nation doesn'tr exist unless the person exists first - the first person, of course. Once the nation exists, then it exerts influence downward, but that's not what we're dealing with here. Progressive development is literally the building toward a more inclusive collective as one identified holon whole. In the case of the human being, the corporeal holon is the human brain and its support system (body, transportation mechanics, sustenance system, sensory units, protective structure). The true end of this specific design is the human intellect expression as permanent dynamic information, which you guys call the "ego". It's the only reason that the human being is what it is, and why it stands alone on this planet. It's the only level of existential development in that entire chain that is free to be spontaneous and dynamic in expression. The rest of the human corporeal being serves to bring it into existence.



....It takes reality - as in what's actually real - and transforms it (for the sake of your example) into perception (as perceived by the human mind), which is not at all the same as objective reality. ...


are the workings of human perception not as natural of an artifact as anything else? yes, they are. and so, the methods of perception can become a generalized description of reality.


Perception is not reality. Look it up. There's no philosopher who has ever suggested such a thing. I actually tried to run that quote down and the closest I ever found was the Irish philosopher, George Berkeley (1685-1753) and his principle, To be is to be perceived. Close, but not close enough.


what we are saying, then, is that causality is passed downward from whole units to smaller whole units. you can try to describe reality as being built up by coherent activity of smaller units, but you will never arrive at cause. because cause moves downward from higher units, it can also be said to move backward through time. logics are built in a forward time direction, and because of this, people that rely exclusively on logic will never come to a complete understanding of cause.


Again, you're confusing downward influence with upward development. Think about this.


it may appear that i am not properly backing this up with evidence. this is because authoritative evidence has not yet been established scientifically. however, the usefulness of a top-down description of reality is incontrovertible. the author that i quoted previously is at the forefront of a scientific grassroots movement which will become essential as the next step of technological revolution and a proper "theory of everything".


Imposing will upon your slice of the contextual environment won't change reality. It'll affect your view of reality, but so what. People have been doing that for thousands of years. That's no big trick.


i wrote a simple article myself about it. you can read it HERE. a diagram of the model i have set up, showing the backward movement of causality, is below:




...i hope this will be sufficient in establishing the validity of a counter-logical description of reality. a full treatise on this subject is beyond the scope of this thread.




Initiating a causal trajectory is what we all do, all the time. We do it without thinking about it. You seem to be getting oddly lost in semantics, or we're suddenly having two completely different conversations here. From my view of this, you've completely walked off on the concept of existential development and there's no way you can defend what you've suggested here with diagrams or charts or balloons or whatever you feel like presenting if that is what you're trying to decribe.

I think you and I are just too far away from each other on this to be able to even properly compare notes to any benefit for either of us. I don't want to waste your time. Thanks for the chat.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I keep that photo to remind me that no one on Earth can push me around.

Perception is not reality. Look it up. There's no philosopher who has ever suggested such a thing.


Is your state of consciousness one of fullness and love/bliss? How does this toughness relate to the
idea of sacrifice of self? Does it prevent it?

Your feeling of perception is not perception at all, but the avoidance of relationship. That is the beginning and end of truth.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
I wrote this poem just the other day.


The Plummet

In the beginning, The Word was God
Existence by Word
Manifest Truth ~ Life created
God is Truth.

Absolute Truth; contrary is but lies
The Word became flesh
The liar thought he killed Truth!
Truth cannot die.

Men made in the image of Truth, twisted by lies
Both coming to and from men…
Who create and destroy with words
The plummet ever present.

Truth stifles lies.
No lies in the presence of Truth = life
Truth be known, lies expire
Truth reigns.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by NorEaster
I keep that photo to remind me that no one on Earth can push me around.

Perception is not reality. Look it up. There's no philosopher who has ever suggested such a thing.


Is your state of consciousness one of fullness and love/bliss? How does this toughness relate to the
idea of sacrifice of self? Does it prevent it?

Your feeling of perception is not perception at all, but the avoidance of relationship. That is the beginning and end of truth.


To be perfectly honest, I probably have a Batman complex. I know that sounds pretty bizarre, but allow me to explain.

I grew up in ugly places. NY State public housing. My mom was pretty great, and my brothers were all pretty okay, but they were like an island floating in a sea of terrible stuff, and it always felt as if that terrible stuff was bound and determined to "do what it does" and hurt them as much as it could. Mainly because that's what terrible stuff does. It made me tough, but it didn't make me a bully. It made me a predator of predators. Like I said, it gave me a Batman complex. I eat predators.

In the music business, it protected me against super-sharks, and probably prevented me from being as successful as I might've been (although I didn't exactly starve), but when I retired to corporateland, it created quite a sh*tstorm for me and for others around me. Since leaving that arena (we sold a company, so I'm still not starving...yet) I've been writing and killing predators as sort of a calling. Certainly no money in this, and no appreciation from anyone either, but that's okay. It's probably too deeply seated by now for me to give a sh*t whether anyone cares or appreciates it. I wouldn't know what to do with either if I encountered it.

Throughout the decades I've been running predators down (in various ways and to various degrees), the one constant has been my realization that most people are victimized by the predator that lives inside their own skin. That's been the main fact of life, as far as I've been able to tell, and I've developed my own theory concerning why most people have such a visceral unease at their core. It has to do with one half of their personal reality making no sense whatsoever with the other half, and their foundational psyche constantly battling with itself over that primary inconsistency. The schism tears at them and demands distraction. For most, it's success or TV, but for many, it's hurting the closest at hand. Moving the pain outward if possible.

This schism seems to really bug intelligent people, and it's no doubt due to the fact that they realize - even if only at the sub-conscious level - a much more profound inconsistency to exist between what they believe and what they know to be true. They seem to be more affected by intellectual inconsistency, and I guess that makes sense, since they live more within their intellect. They invent all kinds of pressure release measures - like proclaiming reality to be elastic or self-medication through purposely shutting down their capacity for intellectual expression - but these don't address or relieve the core problem. They are extremely aware of the fact that there's a need for reality to make sense, even if they deny it at the top of their 16 pt CAPS lungs that reality doesn't really exist.

I finally decided that if I really wanted to make a difference in the lives of people, I needed to attack the core problem, and not just the ramifications of that core problem. A Leftist friend of mine once told me "The difference between a Liberal and a Leftist is that a Liberal spends all their effort rescuing babies that are floating down the river in front of them. While that's commendable, the Leftist will travel upstream and shut down the operation that's tossing babies into the river in the first place." My Leftist friend is right about how you deal with a constant and seemingly intractable problem. You hit it where it initiates.

I know that most predators are feeding on others due to anger, fear, or resentment, and keeping score with body count or money/material gain. Kill off what causes people to become predators, and while you can't eliminate the predators that exist, you can cut into the numbers of future predators, and that's not a bad start. I decided to take the nudges I'd been feeling since the mid-70s - that there is an answer to that core inconsistency that modern humans feel to various degrees, and are damaged by to various degrees - as a notion that deserves to be explored. Not as a curiosity, but as a means of taking the biggest predator of all on - belligerent authoritative ignorance.

So, that's what I did, and that's where I am right now. I think I might've had a breakthrough recently, and I've been testing a variety of aspects by way of challenging people on a variety of forums like this, to see whether these aspects of what I've discovered can survive being challenged. If they ultimately hold, then I may have hit on something that will take down a lot of visceral angst for a lot of people who just can't sign on to what they sub-consciously realize is logically inconsistent with reality as has been and is still being presented by the thought leadership in this world.

So far, so good. I guess I'll know when I hit a buzz saw, but even if I do, it'll only serve to help me further define the blanket premise, since 90% of it has already been thoroughly vetted by the very fact that we're all sitting at our computers and aware of that fact, as we share our grand theories about what it is that's allowing us to do that.

I'm only as tough as it takes to keep from being bullied off what it is that I know needs to be done. The easy answers of faith have been crippled beyond their ability to serve modern humanity. We know too much to ignore that fact that we know too much, and new legends and lies aren't going to work this time. Reality exists, and it can be logically detailed. I'm a "bubbles and arrows guy" in the existential briefing room, and I think I have the workflow charts all figured out. I'm just verifying a few things at this stage of the presentation.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The problem with attempting to ascertain a ''universal truth'' ( if there is one ) is that every truth that someone may believe in will be directly contradicted by someone else's truth.


In the end, whether their is any universal truth or not becomes largely irrelevant and moot, as firstly, it is impossible to prove one way or the other, and secondly, if a universal truth does exist, that ''truth'' is only as good and important as our individual interpretations and perception of it are.


The insurmountable obstacle in working out whose ''truth'' is correct ( if one is ) is in the fact that we, ourselves, are the only people who can gauge and validate the truths that we hold, thereby inevitably sliding down the trap of circular reasoning.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 



Universal Truth was established with the manifestation of life.

All existence is established on core laws, and that is scientifically proven; and, the core laws of any existence at all establishes absolute truth for that life. For example, the chemical makeup of the human body.

en.wikipedia.org...

Those chemicals have to be present all at once, just so, that life will exist as human. Too much deviation from that, and the life will die.

Now, universal truth is a much wider scope than a measly human body that doesn’t really live that long. If you are already dizzy from circular reasoning, perhaps you should sit down and compose yourself before you fall down. The world isn’t flat, and science has proven that the universe isn’t either; and the universe is a much bigger place.

By the way, your av is cute, a red one with a big snout…I know someone like that. HaHa!



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Soke33
 





posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soke33
Universal Truth was established with the manifestation of life.

All existence is established on core laws, and that is scientifically proven; and, the core laws of any existence at all establishes absolute truth for that life. For example, the chemical makeup of the human body.

en.wikipedia.org...

Those chemicals have to be present all at once, just so, that life will exist as human. Too much deviation from that, and the life will die.


No, that doesn't work.

That is your belief that any of that constitutes universal truth. If, hypothetically, I was to reject all of these core laws and not believe in a universal truth, then how would your belief in its existence be any more, or less, valid than my belief in its non-existence ?

Your belief stems from your own personal experiences and observations, and it would impossible for you to attempt to successfully prove this ''universal truth'' to somebody who has formed the opposite opinion based on their own personal experiences and observations.

There is no way for you to validate your belief other than to yourself, which makes your ''truth'' equally as valid as anybody else's ( which can also only be validated by themselves ).


Originally posted by Soke33
Now, universal truth is a much wider scope than a measly human body that doesn’t really live that long. If you are already dizzy from circular reasoning, perhaps you should sit down and compose yourself before you fall down. The world isn’t flat, and science has proven that the universe isn’t either; and the universe is a much bigger place.


I have to say I'm a little bit dizzy from your circular reasoning so far !

You are trying to ''prove'' your truth by citing concepts and observations that you personally hold to be true, just as somebody who doesn't believe in a universal truth would do exactly the same.

Ultimately, what you have done, is argued: ''This is the truth because I believe it to be so''.

Science only ''proves'' as much as the person who believes in it; it doesn't prove anything to those who do not accept its observational outcomes as true.

The Earth is only ''not flat'' to those who personally believe it's spherical. I'm sure that flat-earthers have a different ''truth'' on that matter.


That is not to say that I don't personally believe in an objective reality, just that it is impossible to prove one way or the other, and as I've previously mentioned, even if it is true, any universal truth is only as truthful as each person's individual observations, perceptions and interpretations of it are.



Originally posted by Soke33
By the way, your av is cute, a red one with a big snout…I know someone like that. HaHa!


It's a baby Tree Kangaroo !



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Soke33
Universal Truth was established with the manifestation of life.

All existence is established on core laws, and that is scientifically proven; and, the core laws of any existence at all establishes absolute truth for that life. For example, the chemical makeup of the human body.

en.wikipedia.org...

Those chemicals have to be present all at once, just so, that life will exist as human. Too much deviation from that, and the life will die.


No, that doesn't work.

That is your belief that any of that constitutes universal truth. If, hypothetically, I was to reject all of these core laws and not believe in a universal truth, then how would your belief in its existence be any more, or less, valid than my belief in its non-existence ?



Ummm….my belief is more valid because there is a universe full of bodies that exist. One can try to reject all of the core laws one wants, but the universe and everything in it will still be there.







Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

I have to say I'm a little bit dizzy from your circular reasoning so far !

You are trying to ''prove'' your truth by citing concepts and observations that you personally hold to be true, just as somebody who doesn't believe in a universal truth would do exactly the same.

Ultimately, what you have done, is argued: ''This is the truth because I believe it to be so''.



I’m not arguing anything. I am sharing my observations, and I happen to be an emphatic individual. If it has troubled you, that is your own personal problem. Last time I checked, I can speak my mind, like everyone else.




Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Science only ''proves'' as much as the person who believes in it; it doesn't prove anything to those who do not accept its observational outcomes as true.

The Earth is only ''not flat'' to those who personally believe it's spherical. I'm sure that flat-earthers have a different ''truth'' on that matter.


Okay, but there is much recorded evidence that it is round.




...perhaps they have been to the beach and noticed a slight curvature, or maybe they have been on an airplane to visit faraway countries and have seen the Earth's curvature from the plane.

Next, ask the students to think about some ways of actually showing that the Earth is spherical. They should come up with ways that are obvious now but may have been either controversial or impossible in the days of early astronomy: pictures from space, or actually travelling around the Earth and ending up in the same spot....


www.astro.princeton.edu...





Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

That is not to say that I don't personally believe in an objective reality, just that it is impossible to prove one way or the other, and as I've previously mentioned, even if it is true, any universal truth is only as truthful as each person's individual observations, perceptions and interpretations of it are.



The absolute truth in reality is what makes some people wrong and some people right.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join