Absolute truth?

Seems to me that much of this "argument" stems from the fact that issues of ontology and epistemology are inextricably linked.

Fil

I don't understand how you can assign truth to something that you define as not related to perception. You cannot assign value to "nothing" without contrasting it to something. Your attempts at creating a concept of truth "pre-perception" are merely creating new relationships where you will be naturally inclined to recognize "truth" to validate your belief.
The problem with your "source" is that by it's own definition, if you can think of it, it doesn't exist....

But it is related to perception...
Perception brings in perspective upon that which must be...
Thus Being sums up every possible perspective upon itself...
Bare in mind that I actually said that meaning as perspective has true value...
How else could you conceive of perspective ??? Perspective upon what ???

Even if it were true that mind is all there is, you would still have Being...
Mind would incorporate in itself a specific set of operational rules...Reality in or out of the mind (in the case in) would still be "real" !

I could n´t care less with "ins" or "outs"...it is an Absolute in itself, there´s no way around it.

It is a construct of your imagination that you have yet to agrue the validity of.

1 - I don´t think that asserting rules to anything is a figment of my imagination...

2 - You haven´t answer to any of the several dozen remarks I raised to you concerning this issue, not very honest of you is n´t it ?
You don´t actually expect me to answer to all your questions while you just dodge an slip through my own, on convenience...hell, you´re not even being honest to yourself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY

I saw this one long time ago...

That Truth is non computable does n´t mean it don´t exists or that its n´t necessary...
Rorty is defending the Absoluteness of Truth here not its non-existence...
The problem of knowing with certainty instead the problem of Being...
It makes sense, I mean, how can you compute an absolute or a totality if not with a bigger then absolute computer machine ?
When he says all we know about Truth is that something, a belief, can be true but its not justifiable he is very clearly asserting the problem of certainty in relation to our beliefs...there´s nothing in it against what I say quite the opposite...I do believe that all our beliefs are segments of a code "string", sort to speak, and not the entire length of the "string" which is non computable hence unknowable naturally...I several times pointed out along the Thread that I was not trying to describe what is it to be True, but only asserting its necessity...simultaneously one can say that knowledge although incomplete still is useful as part of Truth due to pattern recognition...same is to say that given that I cannot go the entire length of the string then the very least I can do is to recognise patterns in the string along the way or where I focus...that simple !

Lets say for instance that if you could compute Truth you would come up with the following string: ( for convenience I portrait a very short length)

00101000111100101010

...now lets say that I or any other "observer", as a computer which is part of the String, and needs an identity in it, are represented here by any segment of the string trying to compute the totality of the string...

lets say I am A and that A identity is 10 for instance...

00-10-1000111100101010

...obviously my knowledge upon the string given my axis position in the string brings up a perspective which is only mine in the string and incomplete once I am excluded...

I get behind me... - 00
and in front... - 1000111100101010

other observer with another ID position in the string will necessarily get a different perspective...

Lets say B is 11...

00101000 -11- 1100101010

Behind him... - 00101000
...in front of him... - 1100101010

...now lets say that A and B are arguing upon what is True, presenting each, their different standing point perspectives, thus building different objects of observation on Truth as a Whole, or even just to segments of it...

Is anyone wrong ?
No ! That´s why perspective is build from different standing points of observation...it gets different results due to different contexts...(the axis ID of the observer in relation to the observable set changes, thus changing the appearance of the incomplete set from which he is excluded as its observer)

You can apply the same principle in relation to any segments of the string (objects) which are in relation to you...context is everything !

Nevertheless, the building is there !

Lets say for instance that inside the String a given object presents a given pattern...

0010100 - 011110 - 0101010

In addition to the context problem in which I establish my perspective upon the string or any of its segments and that was previously mentioned we would still have a further problem in establishing the "correct" boundary´s to the observed object...

some might argue that instead of:

0010100 - 011110 - 0101010

the object actually is:

001010 - 00111100 - 101010 ...given the base pattern is closely the same.

Which is right ?

It very much depends on the computing power of the observer and he´s capacity of bringing up relational meaning...thus the core description of the object may vary !

If we were to build code upon code, lets say that my perception of an object is established by a number string in which my position and distance towards an object bring up a relational outcome...

For instance:

If I am A and the object is :
00 - 10 - 100 - 011110 - 0101010
...I must count my distance towards the object and its content bringing up a relational number...

00 - from - 10 - to - 100 - 011110 - 0101010 I will attribute a +1 value for each further distant number in the string...

...the object starts after 3 in front therefore to distance I would get:
0 for the first number in front, 1 to the second, and 2 for the third...

something like: 0-1-2 or 0-01-0-02 = 001002 in terms of distance to the pattern.

Now into the pattern "meaningful conversion" in relation to me:

after - 001002 - then the object - 03-04-05-06-07-08 or 003004005006007008

...now from here one can immediately see why its hard to agree with anyone in this world...

What Rorty said was that "there is nothing to say about "truth"" other than the fact that it is an adjective which describes an actual or hypothetical state of agreement, perhaps temporary, about "beliefs" within a particular community of communicators.

Thus some Christians might argue that it is "transubstantiation is true" whilst others may not, but note that the meaning of transubstantiation is enmeshed in a various complex network of Christian concepts such that its "truth" affects the status of other components of the network.

But, in case you are thinking of arguing that "religious belief" is a special case with respect to "truth", I would counter (like Kuhn) that the network scenario is exactly the same for "science" with the exception that "physical evidence" is called on to account for "justification of belief", and netweorks tend to be standard for particular eras. i.e. selection of "evidence" is directed by the current network (paradigm), as is what constitutes an appropriate "event window" regarding its collection. Rorty, in fact, argues elsewhere that the word "truth" has nothing to add to the activities of scientists, irrespective of the layman's simplistic attitude that "science seeks truth".

You are trying to conceptualize the unconceptualized. A ridiculous notion, as you cannot take the idea into your mind without conceptualizing it.

2 - You haven´t answer to any of the several dozen remarks I raised to you concerning this issue, not very honest of you is n´t it ?


Well, you have not responded to my request for a argumentation of how it is reasonable to refer to the unconceptualized as truth. Without that argumentation your views here are equal to religious, unjustified belief, and I can't be asked to indulge in your fantasies. So if you want me to answer to your "several dozen" remarks, please show me the relevance of your opinions.

So you actually think that because I can't tell with certainty what is true, in consequence I can't tell what is Truth as concept?

But of course Truth can, as anything else, be naturally conceptualized...why not?

Are you less you because you cannot describe yourself to the full? Nonsense!!!

Truth is the actual state of things in any given moment, from which every possible perspective in relation to it establishes a proportional code value of information.

This has more to do with software programming and lnformation Theory then Religion!

So just cut the crap, you and your friend haven't show anything but a bunch of loose incoherent mix of ill placed concepts...

Is meaning true? No? So what? Mind? No? Again is no Truth true? No? Lol! I rest my case...I cannot avoid but take a good laugh at your nonsensical remarks...

1 - Its frankly ironic that you are trying to prove me wrong (asserting true value to my wrongness) without any reference to truth...what can one say or think from someone that actually believes this is feasible ?

2 - I did n´t make a case ??? oh well...I wonder who would in your eyes perspective. Maybe God himself since your own actuality is not enough...

And who defines the "actual state of things" ? Berkeley's "God" of course !

"Transubstantiation" ??? That one is rustic old...really lame !

How about coding and re-coding ??? Do some reading on that !
Put your more then capable brain to good use Fresco...

Everyone and everything in relation do defines the true state of things..."things" are the result of this holistic relation....actually that is exactly what Necessary CAUSE means !!!

Okay I'll do a deal with you. You read and comment on Maturna's "languaging" and then I'll read a reference of yours on "coding".

http://www.enolagaia.com/M78BoL.html

Deal ?

I mean, I can´t help but laugh all the way down even if I don´t want to...just imagine a World without any actual state to be true or untrue...even possibility and impossibility would have not any true value at all !!!
Well !!!...That my friend is magic thinking...and I don´t take it !

I pretty much can tell what this bloke is all about...I can do the reading but still, I cannot see the disagreement between is position and my own...

I do agree all the way that we cannot know with certainty the absolute true value or the extent of potential relations of a segment of a string (object) with the remaining length of it...Reality is not computable by any of its parts !
That would be like something smaller containing something bigger !
...Hell, is self evident why !