Truth and Belief

A group is a collection or assemblage, verified as such because of some sort of discernible replication, an apparent agreement.

---

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow this reasoning; could you please delineate it for me?

kennethamy,

The Assumption of truth without the benifit of the actual experience of the relation in question can never be more than a degree of probability, an educated quess you might say. On the individual level, judgement without actual experience of said relation is an abstract process of decerning its probability, group agreement simply compounds this process, neither can arrive at certainty without the actual experience of the said relation. One knows the pot is hot by the touch, the state of the object relative to me its subject, the truth is directly experienced in the present tense, thus it is known to be true. So I guess I would say too, that truth is limited to the experience of the moment.Truth is that which stands the test of experience.

But, does that mean you think that truth is what is agree on, or that truth is not what is agreed on?

If truth is limited to the experience of the moment, then I don't suppose you think it is true that you were born, nor that you have parents, or even that you had breakfast yesterday. Is that right?

Hello Kennethamy,

Yes, truth is limited to the moment, can you think of a time when you found the truth of something when it was not of the moment. Truth is that which stands the test of experience and experience is of the moment. Being born, though I do not remember the experience its probablity is as high as it gets. I did not have breakfast yesterday morning, it was what you might call a none event, but I did experience not having breakfast, in my experience breakfast did not occur that day. At present I do not have any parents, I do have the memory of the experience of having parents though, as fallible as memory can be I believe I did have parents in the past, that right! Truth is what stands the test of experience, experience is of the moment.

Metaphysical science confirms that any supposed object to examine is in the final analysis an object of belief.

"Reality" exists "forever", but only until it hurts, thus usurped as if by stealth.

Whatever refuses to change is per se belief, not agreement.

Truth is thus a narrative issue, distinguished as such by pain.

Truth hurts because we cling to delusion.

Hi Boagie,

Could it not also be seen that it is only experience that is limited to the moment; and not truth? Just as viewing an object from a moving train; though ones experience of it is just in that moment, it would only be reasonble to think of the object to have existed before the experience, and to continue to exist after the experience.

Experience may well be the only way to come into contact with the truth; but just what is it that our experience is coming into contact with?

What is to validate the moment, except for another to match?

:p

What is to validate the moment, except for another to match?

:p

Hi Isa!

Excellent point Isa, I think truth has to be limited to the experience, experience is of the present, anything which falls out of the context of the present is just conjecture, this conjecture is in all probablity based on experience. The subject may express this experience to others as truth but it can only really be a probability for his listeners. You are right, it would only be reasonable to assume the existence of objects before experienceing them, and to assume their continued existence after the individual has experience of them. This is however not an absolute,it is not of the moment, so again it is a probablity, truth is limited to experience, experience is limited to the moment/present.

If truth was limited to the experience of the moment we would know as much an oysters, or maybe not even that much. Especially if you mean that knowledge is limited to the experience of the moment, which is possibly what you do mean. It is true that water is H20, but that does not in anyway depend on any experience, although the knowledge that water is H20 does, of course, depend on experience. Truth, and knowledge of the truth are quite different.

Perception monitors variation.

Within the timeless time of an infinitesimal instant there is not the time to vary.

To see that that the sky is blue you need to be awake for long enough for the frequency to register.

A sample of less than 1/500,000,000,000,000 of a second would not possibly register the fact of the light.

This is verifiable by experiment: We fail to percieve what fails to move.

Hi Isa!

Excellent point Isa, I think truth has to be limited to the experience, experience is of the present, anything which falls out of the context of the present is just conjecture, this conjecture is in all probablity based on experience. The subject may express this experience to others as truth but it can only really be a probability for his listeners. You are right, it would only be reasonable to assume the existence of objects before experienceing them, and to assume their continued existence after the individual has experience of them. This is however not an absolute,it is not of the moment, so again it is a probablity, truth is limited to experience, experience is limited to the moment/present.

"Experience may well be the only way to come into contact with the truth; but just what is it that our experience is coming into contact with"

Ultimately we do not know, apparent reality is enabled by our senses but the which enables also limits, it is the unknown which supports the known. It is what Kant call the thing-in-itself, it manifests to us as apparent reality but we can never know its true nature, because we cannot experience it.

Exactly, all is motion.

Truth is a narrative issue.

The more the truth changes, the more concerned we are that it does, so along comes belief to lock it all up.

Hi Boagie,

I agree, from a practical stand point one can only experience the truth. But I don't see that experience IS the truth. So what is this thing that is experienced that is called the truth?:"

If you express what you experience is that not the truth, experience is the truth of itself, it may not be a full understaning but it is your experience, your truth.



"It seems too superficial and subjective to simply say that truth is nothing more than human convention. To define truth as being truth simply because it is agreed upon seems to render the concept of truth as useless and meaningless."

All meaning is subjective, subjective experience, not hear say.

"But then to view the truth as something analogous to Plato's Forms, or Jung's Archetypes, seems to make truth too ethereal and mystical; but then it seems that ethereal and mystical may well be the very nature of the truth.