2
   

Truth is a choice

 
 
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:07 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

It is not an absolute truth, so your reluctance to just agree is perhaps the smart move Wink


I have a question...does our realization of this move us closer or further from the absolute truth. It's an addition of knowledge and perceptions thus seemingly moving further from it, or are we either backtracking towards it or starting to loop around?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:14 pm
@Chights47,
...all forms of relation always ad and never subtract...
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:21 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...all forms of relation always ad and never subtract...


But which way does it add? Does it add to our understanding thus bringing us closer? Does it add to the distance in which is the gap between us realizing this absolute and completely ineffable truth? Is it something else entirely that I'm missing?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:29 pm
@Chights47,
The way I see it, no truth is the closest we can come to any real truth. All is perspective and relationship.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 01:32 pm
@Chights47,
...every step forward is a step back...so I guess both ways is the honest answer...when you get something new normally you leave something behind in its place...bottom line is that both forms of understanding were valid in its own domain...but if you change domain the understanding and description changes with you...Truth still is the same although you may speak in a different form to refer it...
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 02:07 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

...every step forward is a step back...so I guess both ways is the honest answer...when you get something new normally you leave something behind in its place...bottom line is that both forms of understanding were valid in its own domain...but if you change domain the understanding and description changes with you...Truth still is the same although you may speak in a different form to refer it...


So to put it into a more physical sense, by going somewhere, we really end up nowhere...exactly where we were before?
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:16 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

But "absolute truth" aside, perhaps it is easier now to relate to the headline of this thread: Truth is a choice.
Just as Oxygen is a choice, for we can hardly live without either...
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 03:37 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

But "absolute truth" aside, perhaps it is easier now to relate to the headline of this thread: Truth is a choice.
Just as Oxygen is a choice, for we can hardly live without either...


That statement doesn't really fit. That statement is a step beyong his. You've gone into your (in a general sense) truth rather than the choice itself. It is a somewhat difficult concept to see, much less grasp.
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 May, 2011 10:33 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

The way I see it, no truth is the closest we can come to any real truth. All is perspective and relationship.


Quote:
The gold foil scattering experiment

In Canada, Rutherford felt he was far away from the center of things. He longed to return to England where he would be closer to other physicists. In 1907, Arthur Schuster asked him to direct the physics laboratory at the University of Manchester. Rutherford gladly accepted the job.

At Manchester, Rutherford found a well-equipped laboratory. He also found a 25-year-old physicist named Hans Geiger. Geiger had been Professor Schuster's assistant. When Rutherford took over, Geiger agreed to stay and work with him on alpha particles.

Together, Rutherford and Geiger developed a detector that could count alpha particles. It was an early version of the Geiger-Mueller counter we use today.

Geiger used his counter to test a new way of detecting alpha particles. The new detector was a screen coated with zinc sulfide. Each time an alpha particle hit the screen, it would emit a tiny flash of light called a scintillation. In order to see the scintillations, Geiger had to peer at the screen through a microscope.

Now Geiger was ready to do an experiment. Rutherford had noticed that when a beam of alpha particles passed through a thin foil, its image on a photographic plate was blurred. The alpha particles were colliding with the atoms in the foil, and bouncing off at a small angle. When a beam of particles interacts with a target in this way, it is said to be scattered. Rutherford and Geiger hoped to learn something about atoms by counting the scattered particles.

Geiger got his alpha particles from a radioactive "source." To create a narrow beam of particles, Geiger placed his source behind a slit. Fifty-four centimenters from the slit he placed a zinc-sulfide detector. The alpha particles emerged from the slit and hit a spot in the center of the detector.

Geiger put a thin foil in front of the slit. The alpha particles went through the foil, but they did not come out in a narrow beam. They spread out like light from a flashlight.

Geiger moved his detector across the beam. At each new spot he counted the number of alpha particles hitting the screen. From his measurements he calculated the average angle of deflection of an alpha particle that had passed through the foil. It was very small, less than one degree from the center path.

At about this time, a student named Ernest Marsden joined Geiger at the lab. Geiger asked Rutherford to suggest a project for the young man. Rutherford told him to see if any of the alpha particles were being deflected by more than 90 degrees. That is, he was to see if any alpha particles were bouncing back toward the source.

A few days later, Geiger reported that Marsden had indeed observed alpha particles deflected by more than 90 degrees.

Rutherford was dumbfounded. From Geiger's measurements, he knew that the probability of small deflections adding up to more than 90 degrees was less than one in a billion. Yet when Geiger and Marsden counted alpha particles, they found that about one in 8000 was deflected by a large angle.

Rutherford could think of only one explanation for Marsden's result. The alpha particles must be colliding with something small and heavy inside the atom.

Hantaro Nagaoka had been right. The atom's positive charge was concentrated in the center, with the electrons in orbit around it. The small, heavy center of the atom is called the nucleus, from the Latin word meaning kernel, or small nut.


where here is an alternate truth , other than what the experiment shows ?

there isn't


Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 09:36 am
@north,
north wrote:

Cyracuz wrote:

The way I see it, no truth is the closest we can come to any real truth. All is perspective and relationship.


where here is an alternate truth , other than what the experiment shows ?

there isn't


To state an alternate truth would be relatively easy, just claim that everything is either wrong or a lie and slap whatever you want on it. You, of course, wouldn't believe it. You would actually probably just think that it's complete jibberish, unfortunately you can't control the minds of everyone, thus, they will think what they will. You're perceptions and experiences have clouded you from seeing anything else than that as truth which is why you can't see any other truths.

Seeing as how this experiment was done back in 1911, and Hans Geiger died back in 1945, and these studies, I'd wager that you didn't meet him. So you're only really basing this information on the hopes that the people that presented this information, were correct. Since you have no first hand experience of this, there no guarantee that all of it's correct or even if it was a complete fabrication thought up to help advance the scientific "truth". The scientic "truth" in today's world is always based on something else. This endless staircase (so to speak) has progressed so far that you fail to realize what all is behind you...which is nothing.

For example; you're "knowledge" of this language (or any). Why does each word mean what it does? Let me explain in a more practical way. Bag's use flowers to carry children and dog's to meat. That in itself make's no sense. But if you replace bag with children, flowers with bookbags (or backpacks), children with books, dog's with pencils and meat with school. It forms the sentence: Children use bookbags (backpacks), to carry books and pencils to school. That was just the swapping of nouns, there's a significant more to a language than that, however. If you can convey an explanation as to 'why' language is the way it is beyond basically stating "because that's the way it is" then please provide such an answer.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 12:10 pm
@Chights47,
First, he is referring to Nature´s Law´s, which so far as we can tell are the same they always were...
Second you are to distinguish Knowledge of truth from Truth which are different things...
and third, the problem of what language refers to is a matter of convention and not a matter of being on its own right...

When one demands for an alternate truth then the one truth we experiment through our perception and senses and that we reason with our brains one is demanding for an entirely different set of natural rules in order to be able make the comparison on what rests on a more fundamental level...it happens there´s no such alternative nor we can have any other form of contact with reality which is n´t the result of our perceptional apparatus and its functional interaction with the world...for purposes of knowledge which is what we can engage on truth that which we can experiment its the ultimate and only source for it, in there rests the ground of our only knowledge and even the scope and depth of our questions, once we cannot mean to ask that which we don´t know or can´t have access to...

Questions only ask and mean as far as they can conceive what they are asking for...and in such way this is correct that the only conception of demanding for truth that we can have necessarily requires an answer in the exact proportion of what really has been asked for...
(its fair to conclude that there are no transcendental questions, only presumption and nonsense)
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 01:06 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Fil Albuquerque wrote:

First, he is referring to Nature´s Law´s, which so far as we can tell are the same they always were...
Second you are to distinguish Knowledge of truth from Truth which are different things...
and third, the problem of what language refers to is a matter of convention and not a matter of being on its own right...

When one demands for an alternate truth then the one truth we experiment through our perception and senses and that we reason with our brains one is demanding for an entirely different set of natural rules in order to be able make the comparison on what rests on a more fundamental level...it happens there´s no such alternative nor we can have any other form of contact with reality which is n´t the result of our perceptional apparatus and its functional interaction with the world...for purposes of knowledge which is what we can engage on truth that which we can experiment its the ultimate and only source for it, in there rests the ground of our only knowledge and even the scope and depth of our questions, once we cannot mean to ask that which we don´t know or can´t have access to...

Questions only ask and mean as far as they can conceive what they are asking for...and in such way this is correct that the only conception of demanding for truth that we can have necessarily requires an answer in the exact proportion of what really has been asked for...
(its fair to conclude that there are no transcendental questions, only presumption and nonsense)


...I'm not certain as to whether you're with or against me on this...I tried a couple of times to form a rebuttel but some of the things that you're saying seem to coincide with what I'm saying...just in a sort of roundabout way. The only real reason I brought up language is to make the point that everything that we've based everything on is a matter of conventions (language, mathematics, etc.). In order to come up with an adequate alternate truth, we would need many more years for the branching of our perceptions to take effect to an extent where they would be able to be recognized. An example would be how the universe was created, it's an idea that starts millions if not billions of years ago. It's had all those years in order to manifest itself into different forms such as God, evolution, etc. 100 years isn't a long enough time to create an alternate truth that anyone would really be able to understand. I'm certain I possess a great enough imagination to make up something completely ridiculous however ;-)
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 01:13 pm
@Cyracuz,
All is perspective and relationship!
And I would add: interpretation and contingency.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 04:44 pm
@Chights47,
...mostly with you...just went up to clarify some stuff...its more a matter of context and correspondence...
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 08:46 pm
@JLNobody,
I tend to value my own interpretations above those of others. Yesterday I had to endure a person who was hell bent on telling me that I was full of myself. Even though I understood that his motive was that he felt he was trapped in "my shadow" I cannot help but consider his words... I do not know if I put too much emphasis on the opinions of others, or perhaps too little. Conceptual clarity isn't always the same as a clear view.
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 09:52 pm
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

I tend to value my own interpretations above those of others. Yesterday I had to endure a person who was hell bent on telling me that I was full of myself. Even though I understood that his motive was that he felt he was trapped in "my shadow" I cannot help but consider his words... I do not know if I put too much emphasis on the opinions of others, or perhaps too little. Conceptual clarity isn't always the same as a clear view.


I have a question about this. Within our own consciousness, what other interpretations are there than our own? We can try to perceive the interpretations of other people, but they're still ultimately our own just from a different source. It's actually smarter to value your own interpretations. If we listen to someone elses interpretations, then we would have to interpret his/her interpretations about his/her interpretations of the thing that's being interpreted...It's almost as ridiculous a thought as it is said!
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 10:51 pm
@Chights47,
In a way Socrates was right when he said that we recognize the truth because we already have it. This is a bit like your statement that "We can try to perceive the interpretations of other peole, but they're [really]...our own [but] from a different source."
I agree with Cryacuz that our interpretations are, or should be, most valuable to us because they are ours. Tomorrow we may discard them but not now. And we may adopt (or at least become more open to) the view of another person tomorrow. And isn't that because we are always changing?
Chights47
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 May, 2011 11:54 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

In a way Socrates was right when he said that we recognize the truth because we already have it. This is a bit like your statement that "We can try to perceive the interpretations of other peole, but they're [really]...our own [but] from a different source."
I agree with Cryacuz that our interpretations are, or should be, most valuable to us because they are ours. Tomorrow we may discard them but not now. And we may adopt (or at least become more open to) the view of another person tomorrow. And isn't that because we are always changing?


I see where you're going and yes. Our perceptions are really the only thing we have in this world, it's what makes me, me and you, you. You can't give yourself nor can you be taken (in this sense). We can only attempt to convey ourselfs to form connections of understanding in an attempt to share ourselves.

What you're referring to with these "changes" are experiences. With every single passing second, no matter what we're doing we're changing. The more we immerse ourselfs in these experiences, the more we perceive them, thus the more we allow it to change us. "Never become comfortable with who you are for you never know who you'll be tomorrow" - anonymous.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 02:57 pm
@Chights47,
Excellent.
0 Replies
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 May, 2011 05:09 pm
@Chights47,
We are capable of empathy, and if you were interpreting something on behalf of someone you care for, that might alter what you percieve. If I have a friend who is nervous around dogs, and I am scouting for a nice place where we can have a picnic, I will not pick a spot where people are likely to walk their dogs. If I were going for a picnic on my own that consideration would not be relevant at all. So my interpretation of what constitutes a good picnic spot would be different according to who I was sharing the meal with.
I think I would still call it my interpretation, not my friend's, even though I have adopted my friend's criteria.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Truth is a choice
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/26/2022 at 09:23:26