Is truth subjective or objective?

Is it just me, or am I seeing two debating main groups here. :wink:

0 Replies

An interesting question is why this thread should run and run.

From the point of view of language as "bevioural co-ordination" the answer is simple. The word "truth" only arises in situations of lack of co-ordination...where consensus is lacking. Most of the time "redness of blood" is never (in real life) in dispute...not even for those deemed "colour blind". But my own colour blind child once fell in mud and thought he was bleeding. Only at this juncture did "truth" matter within a decision process of how to "handle" the child i.e. how to co-ordinate our behaviour. (A 17th. century physician might even have recommended " bleeding" to treat the child's "hysterics" !)

Quite simply, we cannot separate "truth" from a decision process involving social co-ordination (including self with self), and the appeal to "objectivity" is actually an appeal to "consensus" (reality being a mythical "total consensus")

IMO The thread will continue to run whilst truth is treated as though separate from particular contexts.

0 Replies

joefromchicago

Quote:

You're half right.

So you're an optimist.

0 Replies

JLNobody

Quote:

Their location is, as some mystic said, (the metaphorical) "great empty space".

Yes, there's no location, and as such "great empty space" is not metaphorical.

Very Happy

..................................................................................... Very Happy

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Quote:

Quite simply, we cannot separate "truth" from a decision process involving social co-ordination (incuding self with self), and the appeal to "objectivity" is actually an appeal to "consensus" (reality being a mythical "total consensus")

I think even Frank and joefromchicago, and perhaps val and Ray, would agree (and notice) that we are alone in our own consciousness, Yet, as you say, we appeal to consensus.

We are the Alone,..as it has been put.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

We are the Alone,..as it has been put.

What do you mean "we?"

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

An interesting question is why this thread should run and run.

From the point of view of language as "bevioural co-ordination" the answer is simple. The word "truth" only arises in situations of lack of co-ordination...where consensus is lacking. Most of the time "redness of blood" is never (in real life) in dispute...not even for those deemed "colour blind". But my own colour blind child once fell in mud and thought he was bleeding. Only at this juncture did "truth" matter within a decision process of how to "handle" the child i.e. how to co-ordinate our behaviour. (A 17th. century physician might even have recommended " bleeding" to treat the child's "hysterics" !)

Quite simply, we cannot separate "truth" from a decision process involving social co-ordination (including self with self), and the appeal to "objectivity" is actually an appeal to "consensus" (reality being a mythical "total consensus")

IMO The thread will continue to run whilst truth is treated as though separate from particular contexts.

interesting example, fresco. if you had been color blind as well, would your child have been bleeding? would your assertion that 'truth' only arises due to lack of co-ordination need qualification in that case?

i do agree that the thread will 'run on'.

earlier, you wrote to me that

Quote:

W's dictum "meaning is use" obviously applies to the linkage of "truth" with "objectivity".

by behavioral co-ordination you are refering to linkage of truth & objectivity, i think, or did i misunderstand?

anyway, thanks for the input, and also the attempt--at least, i think it's an attempt--to propose a middle path between idealism & materialism.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

twyvel wrote:
We are the Alone,..as it has been put.

What do you mean "we?"

I am the Alone.
You are the Alone.

There's only one. From the nondual perspective there's only one Consciousness, having, it seems, trillions of manifestations.

0 Replies

yitwail,

Yes I do imply a middle path... a nondualist interactionist perspective following the Santiago theory of cognition.

As for the scenario of us both being colour blind, I guess my "years of experience" would have led to stringent investigations of the childs skin for "additional information". It is significant here that "information" is mathematically defined as "a choice between alternatives" which again highlights the behavioural decision process. No qualification is needed since the "situation" is observer dependent and there are two observers....all concepts including "colour blindness" are contextual and context is in part ideosyncratic.

0 Replies

The idea that truth arises as a problem in the context of a lack of behavioral co-ordination is at the heart of pragmatism. Metaphysical notions of Truth apply only to the purely theoretical concern for the ultimate nature of (aspects of) reality. Such an approach has no utilitarian value; it's more like art, done for its own sake. A pragmatist might sneer at our recreational philosophizing, unless, of course, he considers our efforts to have psychological (maybe even "spiritual") value--which I think it does.

0 Replies

Well truth does seem to be contained in generalities. Irrespective of whether one is colour blind, all cats are gray in the dark..... if one is a seeing person, that is.

0 Replies

shepaints,

I think that would be a perfect example of where all observers can agree on the "truth" of all the cats present being grey, while the actual truth is quite different, and (I think) absolute.

0 Replies

JLN.

Pragmatism is not quite the "backcloth" for the above.

The subtle difference is that the "I" is evoked as a "decision maker" within the dynamics of a social structure. "I" is like a pilot who is woken from slumber to sort out a red light in the cockpit, but most of the time the plane (body) is on autopilot within an evolving hierarchy of aerobatic formations over which "I" has no "control".

This hierarchical view of embedded structures implies that "information" as defined above will always be limited, and that "function" of the "cell", or "brain" or "body" cannot be comprehensively specified. They can only be partially specified in terms of a limited "local control *" scenario. Indeed "specification" itself is part of that attempted control process and "truth" is an aspect of such specification.

*(Further back I gave a reference to the the distinction between ser and estar in Spanish which are different forms of the verb "to be".
Such a distinction can be interpreted as refering to different forms of locale to which "truth" is being applied.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Irregardless of whether one is colour blind, all cats are gray in the dark..... if one is a seeing person, that is.

The truth is that a cat looks grey in the dark because there is not enough light for us to see the colours waves. :wink:

0 Replies

shepaints wrote:

Quote:

all cats are gray in the dark..... if one is a seeing person, that is.

In medium darkness some colours, shadows and shades of grey are discernible. (artists discovered awhile ago that shadows are not all grey, but in fact often reflect some colour of the thing they are the shadow of.)

In extreme darkness the cats don't exist as visual objects, and neither does the room, furniture and other people etc.

Colour is a function of the eyes, brain etc., so for a coloured blind person, someone, for example, who doesn't ?'see' red, ?'red' doesn't exist. If ?'red' is not >in< the object it's not out there for anyone passing by to see, it's created.

What an object looks like without or before an eye-brain combination creates the colour is beyond our imagination.

0 Replies

Earl wrote:

Quote:

I think that would be a perfect example of where all observers can agree on the "truth" of all the cats present being grey, while the actual truth is quite different, and (I think) absolute.

If colour (and other sensory data) is created by brains then "actual truth" or >what is< is unknown. Accordingly we are condition by what our brains do; what ?'our' brain creates and ?'presents' for observing.

Different (animal) brains different incoming data,...

If the world "as we know it", >as it is observed<, is determined by, and a function of brains and sense organs then that ?'observed world' is only one possibility. As such, the world as experienced is not objective; is not ?'out there', independent of observation.

0 Replies

I have just been reading some fascinating information which classifies humans as trichromats (ranges of colours constructed from 3 basic colours), many other mammals, including dogs and cats as dichromats (2 basic colours), some birds as use 4 or 5 basic colours (perhaps they have superior vision to humans), some nocturnal animals such as rats are colour blind, some insects see ultra-violet light and one species of birdcan see magnetic fields. (When Elephants Weep page. 294)

This leads me to conclude that it is impossible to definitively and objectively describe colour. It is observer dependent, and dependent
on certain external conditions.

Ray, correction acknowledged! I don't suppose we could ever come to consensus on the exact shades of gray of the cats in the dark!!!

0 Replies

Yes, Shepaints. Color, as experience is, by definition, observer dependent. But then everything is dependent on some things, and ultimately on everything. That is to say, all is conditional and conditioned.
By the way, SuperJuly's signature is a quote from Aldous Huxley: "Great is the truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about the truth." Fat chance of that on A2K.

0 Replies

Interesting shepaints.

I've read recently that a dog's sense of smell is 10,000 times stronger or greater then humans. Imagine the information they get that we do not.

Brains and sense organs certainly appear to determine experience but this idea that the brain is the creator of sensory observations is like a snake eating its own tail. If the brain is an object in a phenomenal world that it creates then it creates itself. Meaning it has to exist prior to creating itself in order to create itself.

The duality of the creator?-created collapse bringing this materialist biased theory with it.

0 Replies

Twyvel, you wrote:
If the world "as we know it", >as it is observed<, is determined by, and a function of brains and sense organs then that ?'observed world' is only one possibility. As such, the world as experienced is not objective; is not ?'out there', independent of observation."

My 'objectivism" described somewhere (maybe in this thread), is not in contradiction with your denial of the objective world "out there." I see the world subjectively and that's an objective fact. And this model accomodates all the different kinds of brains having different experiences of the same whatchamacallit. And, of course, it is all an indiscribable unity.

0 Replies

Is truth subjective or objective?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know