truth
C.I., I "know" Fresco has something there. Rufio, please, as a favor to me and yourself, re-read (actually contemplate) and try to understand Twyvel's statement about the Truth that "just is". It is not the truth that is the opposite of untruth. She is a POINTING TO a nondualistic and therefore, in a sense ABSOLUTE, extra-categoric referent, a something intuited. Your response was logical, but since it was dualistic it missed her meaning altogether. Perhaps there isn't any way we can get around this problem. If people as smart as Joe, Frank and Terry do not get the point, obviously it cannot be communicated discursively. While Mindless drops phrases that seem to indicate he is with us on this matter, most of what s/he says indicates that is not the case.
I've got to leave town for a week, folks, so I'm going to miss much of this fascinating frustration. I'll try to get on-line if possible.
I appreciate all your criticisms. I like to see how people will react to these types of ideas. You guys/gals reacted as most people do. You will fight to the death with your completely deterministic models of the universe. My particular instance of mind understands that cause and effect are not the only variables.
When do you think modern science will realize its deficiencies? (I read an article about some recent world physics conference in America that suggests this discussion is finally happening within the leaders of the physics community). Or do you subscribe to this religion as holding the great and glorious Absolute Truths about the world? It got so boring for me to follow the rules of religion and science (a religion of sorts) that I simply quit and started exploring. I don't expect anyone that has posted here to understand this. I don't wish to negate the place of science simply that there will always be more than what science can offer.
I do find it funny that no one else is offering anything new or unique to the subjects of Truth and congnition. You guys write the same things everyone else does, the same replies, the same logic, the same predictable thought processes. I may not be following rules but I am having fun. Are you having fun? Can you think outside the box? Someone please post a reply that suggest they have really read what I wrote.
joefromchicago - what evidence really is there besides what we experience. I agree with the most of the deterministic model of the mind but also think that there is sufficient evidence that the model of consciousness is slightly flawed. Thought is dualisitic by nature and so is everything derived by thought. But is there more the mind than thought? Shouldn't the model at least have 3 dimensions?
c.i. - unlike knowledge, absolute truth is indentified by you not for you. That is why so many assimilate it with spiritual, but this is just deficient reasoning. We have been through this paradox thing already.
rufio - Absolute Truth should be self evident. What does the lack of such a simple concept say about the way someones mind is constructed? It tells me much.
matter, gravity, energy, time - sure, all relative in mathematics. Do you guys really think that all things are Absolutely Relative?
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:If people as smart as Joe, Frank and Terry do not get the point, obviously it cannot be communicated discursively.
Or perhaps if the point cannot be communicated discursively, it cannot be communicated at all. And if it cannot be communicated, is it really a point?
mindless wrote:...what evidence really is there besides what we experience.
You tell me.
mindless wrote:I agree with the most of the deterministic model of the mind but also think that there is sufficient evidence that the model of consciousness is slightly flawed.
How do you know that?
mindless wrote:Thought is dualisitic by nature and so is everything derived by thought. But is there more the mind than thought? Shouldn't the model at least have 3 dimensions?
Why? Are you saying that the notion of "mind" logically implies a third dimension?
mindless,
If you study some of the threads associated with with posters here you may not find the "same predictable stuff". Krishnamurti, Campbell et al have all been discussed together with many others.
References have been for example to David Chalmers papers on consciousness (and his co-workers in quantum conciousness) Von Forster on second order cybernetics, "Fuzzy Logic" and the rejection of the Law of the Excluded Middle, through which we seek a platform or vantage point to attempt a transcendence of binary logic and its "truth values" .
truth
Joe, as I was saying, it may not be a DISCURSIVE point. But it seems to me that to say that what cannot be discussed does not exist (not that you've made this statement--I can't tell for sure) would be tantamount to committing the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.
See you in a week (if I can't manage to get on line before)
Re: truth
JLNobody wrote:Joe, as I was saying, it may not be a DISCURSIVE point. But it seems to me that to say that what cannot be discussed does not exist (not that you've made this statement--I can't tell for sure) would be tantamount to committing the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness.
See you in a week (if I can't manage to get on line before)
Does the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness operate in a nondualistic universe?
I realize that I make what would seem to be discursive points. Unfortunatly I do more thinking than writing and I can't seem to control my thoughts patterns very well. Things unfold faster than my language can keep up with them and although I know they are consistent, I am missing many steps of explaination.
fresco - thanks for the tip. I will read some of the historical threads. I develop advance control applications and work extensively with Fuzzy Logic, Neural Networks, Artificial Intelligence, Genetic Algorithms... and so on. There is a keen sense of satisfaction that comes with the develop of AI that can control complex chemical reactions that were once thought to be to dynamic/nonlinear/interactive to handle. I like my job, but it gets boring.
mindless wrote:I appreciate all your criticisms. I like to see how people will react to these types of ideas. You guys/gals reacted as most people do. You will fight to the death with your completely deterministic models of the universe. My particular instance of mind understands that cause and effect are not the only variables.
When do you think modern science will realize its deficiencies? (I read an article about some recent world physics conference in America that suggests this discussion is finally happening within the leaders of the physics community). Or do you subscribe to this religion as holding the great and glorious Absolute Truths about the world? It got so boring for me to follow the rules of religion and science (a religion of sorts) that I simply quit and started exploring. I don't expect anyone that has posted here to understand this. I don't wish to negate the place of science simply that there will always be more than what science can offer.
I do find it funny that no one else is offering anything new or unique to the subjects of Truth and congnition. You guys write the same things everyone else does, the same replies, the same logic, the same predictable thought processes. I may not be following rules but I am having fun. Are you having fun? Can you think outside the box? Someone please post a reply that suggest they have really read what I wrote.
joefromchicago - what evidence really is there besides what we experience. I agree with the most of the deterministic model of the mind but also think that there is sufficient evidence that the model of consciousness is slightly flawed. Thought is dualisitic by nature and so is everything derived by thought. But is there more the mind than thought? Shouldn't the model at least have 3 dimensions?
c.i. - unlike knowledge, absolute truth is indentified by you not for you. That is why so many assimilate it with spiritual, but this is just deficient reasoning. We have been through this paradox thing already.
rufio - Absolute Truth should be self evident. What does the lack of such a simple concept say about the way someones mind is constructed? It tells me much.
matter, gravity, energy, time - sure, all relative in mathematics. Do you guys really think that all things are Absolutely Relative?
Are you shitting me -- or are you just some ignorant boor posting whatever happens to come into what you undoubtedly refer to as your mind?
Where the hell do you get the balls to say some of the garbage you managed to spew in these few paragraphs?
You suggest the rest of us "think outside the box!"
Aside from the obvious "How more trite can one get?" -- the only other thing I can think as a proper response to that is: Why don't you try to think?"
The only way universal truths can be possible is if we seperate ourselves from the outside world. We are independent of the outside world. Truths thus become objective and based on reason and senses, thus an objective reality of the world.
An abstract Math Problem...
"You are marooned on a desert island where there are only liars and truth tellers. You meet a couple and the wife says, 'My husband told me that he is a liar.'
Is she a liar or a truth teller?"
I am new to the forum and have found this topic more than interesting. I appreciate all of the input from each individual.
I am not a philosopher, I am only an observer of mankind. I have seen people with something(I engage my "something", ie. truth) that in appearance, seems genuine. Others appear to always be in such a transition so that they are even without there own individuality.
From what all has been written here, can the following be construed as truth?
That within all of us, is the search for an "ultimate" truth, that one thing that defines us and gives us credibility. Without it we can no more define ourselves or the lives that we lead. All is without purpose or position and never is a direction defined.
Truth:
1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. Sincerity; integrity.
3. Fidelity to an original or standard.
Reality; actuality.
Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.
If everything is relative and nothing is absolute, then...
