Is the pursuit of ultimate truth futile for humans?

[sascha]

To my sense things become really interesting once one notices that both the inner-world and the outer-world are finally judged by the same instance. In the last resort, thinking the cosmos means considering strict totality (but I admit that few are uncompromising enough to reach there). The relevant question is thus not how to introduce 'useful' subdivisons (which all end up in some aporia), but whether the judging instance is fully aware of its own means and way of doing so (its categoreal structure). Any basic subdivison introduces a one-eyedness, a bias, etc. -- something distorting.

The tag of "experience" is more relevant in getting to know (the cognitive process) than in knowing (the result). Usually people can either think something, or think the thought of thinking that thing, but not both simultaneously. This is why they believe there must be basic splits. But in fact, if they would care to 'step back' inside and contemplate strictly the whole, they would be able to notice that they actually are the unity of their awareness, by being attentive to it. One's own act of thinking can then gradually be experienced -- instead of only perceiving its results (and ending up in wanting natural science -- the look of others -- to give the answers, which can of course never reach the core of the issue, but only lead into more and more words about less and less of what really is relevant). Yes, this is the path to la la land... in utterly serious stone-faced attitudes, believing god knows what... looking at everything 'from outside' and feeling thus enormously 'objective', but -- because of not noticing the personal involvement (e.g. in the assumptions, beliefs, hopes, fears, etc.) -- finally never reaching the essentials.

The term "introspection" is not wrong here, but unfortunately burdened with useless connotations. Most people imagine introspection to be some kind of 'inner looking' (remember e.g. Mentat's fantasies), which in the end famously leads to the 'homunculus problem'. The fact that one is actually doing something (directing thoughts) while thinking escapes the usual attention. Then these people are compelled to invent all sorts of abstract construals for making up for the lost terrain (which can't ever be conclusive -- see above). The scene would be rather amusing if it did not lead to so many absurdities in the ensuing human relations.

 

[sascha]

Zero, could you be more specific about who fantasizes what?

 

[THANOS]

Reason why I say we will get the truth after we die is for the following reason i have written down.

We are a part of a system of live and die and every life must live by that system. Some question what happens after death and I am pretty sure i can acknowledge what happens because of my beliefs. I believe that all matter has a drive to reach perfection and will always seek ways to reach that goal. Thinking about the universe, galaxies, solar systems and Earth works together it makes a lot of sense. There are different types of perfection seekers for not every life thinks in the same manner. Now with the drive that exist in all matter will also mean existing in all life. Life is with thinking in most cases. Maybe all but we don't know that for certain. I'll direct this to humans since we are humans and can understand our kind more then any other. Our brains hold all of our information, thoughts, personalities and emotions. And our memories that caused them. We die then our thoughts will parish. We, our personality will cease to exist. Our body will decompose and the rest will evaporate. With our body and mind gone then how can we live on, we can't.

Earth has enough chemicals to create the essence of life. As soon as life was mixed up then became evolving. Since every matter has a goal to perfection. A part of perfection is dealing with what you got and for life that was to live on by reproducing and survival. For mankind they created a concepts of right and wrong to survive for perfection could not be reached if we did it alone and destroyed each other. After we die that drive for perfection still exist but it exist without thought. That is why we can't comprehend that answer. That moment after we die, the moment where thought no longer exist is the moment where the answer is perfectly clear. But how can we comprehend a moment without thought when the thought of nothing and void is incomprehensible. We may not be able to comprehend nothing but we can acknowledge it. Like how most people can not comprehend how a computer works but they acknowledge that is does work.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by sascha
Zero, could you be more specific about who fantasizes what?

Everyone, to a degree...some much more than others. we all pretend to understand things we really don't, but people like me at least try to keep it to a minimum. Others believe in all sorts of gap-filling things like religion, faith in general, UFOs, ESP, talking to the dead, herbs, drugs...conspiracy theories in general are also very popular, because they carry on the myth of control. --

THe reasons our brains do this are probably too many to list...here's a couple:
1) A close enough answer derived quickly has more survival benefit than a perfect answer arrived at too late.
2) A need to feel in control exists, the lack of which will cause madness and eventually death. A false sense is as good as a real one.
3) A curiosity that cannot be contained, combined with a limited ability to satusfy it.

I think that these three points explain the whole 'inner world/outer world' myth. It is a quick explanation that works in the short term, it clears your mind for other tasks, and allows you a false sense of control.

 

[sascha]

Thanks, Zero, for your details. Sure, many such motivations are operative in generating fantasies -- especially in a cultural context that does not exactly foster quiet sober reflection, but rather is a bit pushy (the idea of "control" has become extremely pervasive) and hence reproduces pushyness all the time, which has more irrational effects than rational ones. So it is nice to find people who keep a bit of distance from all those coercions.

And thanks, Thanos, for your details. They show me a bit more clearly how you feel while existing and about the moment when all this changes. Note that there is an interesting counterpart, which merits some attention too: the change called birth, from nothingness towards being.

Maybe both of you can appreciate that the fundamental gesture I propose, which is to maintain a mental openness (the term 'listening' is something like a metaphor) instead of introducing fantasies into our queries, can be useful to both of you: it is as much a way of approaching the "nothing" that Thanos is hinting at, as it is a way of avoiding excessive fantasizing, as Zero observes.

 

[Zero]

Being open-minded is fine...being open-minded to evidence, that is. If the evidence points one way, we need to follow that way to its conclusion. How do you follow lack of evidence?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Being open-minded is fine...being open-minded to evidence, that is. If the evidence points one way, we need to follow that way to its conclusion. How do you follow lack of evidence?

Which evidence is that? That which is external, but can only be evaluated internally, because this is the only means by which you have to evaluate anything? Hence I'm afraid all you can really do is chalk it up to "subjective experience." Which, need not be a problem though, if in fact you understand this is an honest assessment of how the mind works.

In which case it's this same process, that is if you will begin to listen, that will give you insight into yourself and just about everything else. In fact, you can say this is the means by which God speaks to you man (through the means of honest assessment). Although granted, you need not necessarily make the "God association" in order to understand who you are.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Which evidence is that? That which is external, but can only be evaluated internally, because this is the only means by which you have to evaluate anything? Hence I'm afraid all you can really do is chalk it up to "subjective experience." Which, need not be a problem though, if in fact you understand this is an honest assessment of how the mind works.

In which case it's this same process, that is if you will begin to listen, that will give you insight into yourself and just about everything else. In fact, you can say this is the means by which God speaks to you man (through the means of honest assessment). Although granted, you need not necessarily make the "God association" in order to understand who you are.

Blah blah blah...your created mythological god again?

 

[sascha]

The question is, to my sense: evidence of what? It is relatively obvious that once we have evidence of something that points one way, then "we need to follow that way to its conclusion". That is fine. But -- as Zero's question about lack of evidence shows -- the preliminaries are the tricky part. To my sense, already there an openness of mind is rather useful.

But maybe I should give an example. Logic cannot be proved as such; only specific logics can be proved (e.g. modal, fuzzy, etc.). Goedel's theorem is there for clarifying this. So how can we have evidence of logic as such? What I have called 'listening' is the 'dimension' that allowed Goedel (in this example) to think clearly the thorny issue. He sought evidence where there was none.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
Blah blah blah...your created mythological god again?

The "evidence" is within. Always has and always will be. Now, if you wish to associate that evidence with the "myth of evolution," then that's another story I guess? ...

So what is the evidence to anything if we are unable to mirror it within? How do we "know" that it's true? Isn't that afterall what makes us Human, our ability to do this?

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
…So what is the evidence to anything if we are unable to mirror it within? How do we "know" that it's true? …

By believing?
The established method is to validate the evidence under controlled conditions by independent inquires. This is why it is natural even for idealist minded individuals to relate their experiences/observations to others…

Ask yourself; can I validate that which is within another?

The "evidence" is within. Always has and always will be.

The counter argument to ‘knowing’ there is a deity through wholly personal inner experience goes something like this;

1a) you tell me that you stubbed your toe and it is swollen.
This I can accept at face value.

1b) you then tell me the reason you stubbed your toe was due, say, to the actions of another individual.
This I cannot accept at face value.

2a) you tell me you have had an overpowering and irresistible feeling that you have been in the presence of a deity.
This I can accept at face value.

2b) you then tell me a deity was responsible for the feeling you had.
This I cannot accept at face value.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
By believing?
The established method is to validate the evidence under controlled conditions by independent inquires. This is why it is natural even for idealist minded individuals to relate their experiences/observations to others…

But don't you believe we're endowed with the capabilties to see things for ourselves? Or else how would we be able to know "the truth" of anything? Indeed, seeing is believing.

Ask yourself; can I validate that which is within another?

Sure you can, if you've been given the capacity to experience the same thing.

The counter argument to ‘knowing’ there is a deity through wholly personal inner experience goes something like this;

1a) you tell me that you stubbed your toe and it is swollen.
This I can accept at face value.

1b) you then tell me the reason you stubbed your toe was due, say, to the actions of another individual.
This I cannot accept at face value.

2a) you tell me you have had an overpowering and irresistible feeling that you have been in the presence of a deity.
This I can accept at face value.

2b) you then tell me a deity was responsible for the feeling you had.
This I cannot accept at face value.

Truth is revealed to us through our experience, and unless it is revealed to us in this way, then there is nothing to say we should have to accept it. Again, seeing is believing.

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But don't you believe we're endowed with the capabilties to see things for ourselves? Or else how would we be able to know "the truth" of anything? Indeed, seeing is believing.

Maybe I’m just not ‘seeing’ the same thing you are…

Sure you can, if you've been given the capacity to experience the same thing.

What do you suppose are the implications of the word “if” in the above?

Truth is revealed to us through our experience…

Mistakes and falsity are likewise revealed, too.
If truths are revealed incrementally as the above seems to suggest, then stepping off the Tram prematurely may leave an individual shy of Terminal ‘T’...

…and unless it is revealed to us in this way, then there is nothing to say we should have to accept it. Again, seeing is believing.

Believing isn’t necessarily the same thing as knowing.

 

[THANOS]

I feel sorry for the blind man who don't believing anything.

 

[BoulderHead]

Belief does not require as a prerequisite, the ability to see.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The "evidence" is within. Always has and always will be. Now, if you wish to associate that evidence with the "myth of evolution," then that's another story I guess? ...

So what is the evidence to anything if we are unable to mirror it within? How do we "know" that it's true? Isn't that afterall what makes us Human, our ability to do this?

It doesn't count as evidence unless it can be shared with everyone, and everyone can agree on it...and that's without brainwashing or shrooms.

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
The "evidence" is within.

An interesting point that was brought to my attention just recently was the beliefs of the Pragmatist Philosopher John Dewey. Being someone heavily influenced by the discussions in these forums, when told that Dewey's stance was that there is no distinction between Inner and Outer, that the world that exists 'out there' is precisely the world we live in, and that's all there is, I questioned it.

Eventually I realized that I had no reasonable basis to ignore his points, being namely that the distinction between inner and outer is a relic of old outdated philosophy with no basis. The world exists, and we exist in it, and that's all there is to it.

I dunno, I haven't explained this incredibly well, but I don't know it very well yet. I just know that after a good discussion with my lecturer left me wondering...

 

[sascha]

The distinction of Inner versus Outer is indeed not a quality of reality, but a choice of humans. After all, as I stated some days earlier, the instance that judges the Inner and Outer is the same; it just happens to feel a lot closer to what it calls its Inner than to the Outer, because it has a more direct access to the first.

In times where knowledge is being defined as "justified true belief" (with ensuing woes like the Gettier problem), it is difficult to get out of the cage of belief at all. We should again focus on full universal certainty, not the usual fragmented theories and knowledge. Firmly believing that complete knowledge is impossible is the first step towards actually making it impossible. One should at least leave open a door to endeavors that seek to be better than that.

It would thus make sense to select approaches that don't fall into the trap of primal assumptions and hence subdivisions, and which can afford a truly universal categoreality. But that's not possible in the scope of traditional methodology. This is why I advocate another path than the traditional...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by BoulderHead
Belief does not require as a prerequisite, the ability to see.

That would be blind faith then. In which case seeing is believing.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Zero
It doesn't count as evidence unless it can be shared with everyone, and everyone can agree on it...and that's without brainwashing or shrooms.

This is purely a myth. Since when are we going to get even two people to agree 100% on anything? It'll never happen ... except perhaps in "somebody else's" mind.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Another God
An interesting point that was brought to my attention just recently was the beliefs of the Pragmatist Philosopher John Dewey. Being someone heavily influenced by the discussions in these forums, when told that Dewey's stance was that there is no distinction between Inner and Outer, that the world that exists 'out there' is precisely the world we live in, and that's all there is, I questioned it.

Well he obviously wasn't a spiritualist. For if there is a spiritual side to our being, "interiorly," then the distinction must be made -- or, will be made, when we pass on. Of course to a staunch materialist, this doesn't bear any further consideration.

 

[THANOS]

i can believe what i do not see. Seeing isn't the only sense we have. So blind faith is what you call those who believe without seeing? You can smell, touch, hear, and taste things also. If there was an apple pie in a picth black room I am sure you can believe that it is apple by by simply feeling, smelling and tasting it. Even your eyes can deceive you. Relying on your eyes to tell you what's true is being blind.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by THANOS
i can believe what i do not see. Seeing isn't the only sense we have. So blind faith is what you call those who believe without seeing? You can smell, touch, hear, and taste things also. If there was an apple pie in a picth black room I am sure you can believe that it is apple by by simply feeling, smelling and tasting it. Even your eyes can deceive you. Relying on your eyes to tell you what's true is being blind.

Oh, I see what you mean. And I didn't see, taste, smell, feel or hear anything of it. Yes, seeing is believing.

Actually what you're doing here is mixing the physical with the abstract, either that or you're trying to confound me in a little game of semantics. Hmm ... I wonder how far back the expression "seeing is believing" goes anyway? It's not like I just happened to whip it out of my back pocket you know ...

 

[blu]

Explain

In case this is a forum forum were we all know each other, I am Blu,

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
That would be blind faith then. In which case seeing is believing.

I once saw Siegfried & Roy make an elephant appear out of thin air. Seeing is believing!

 

[THANOS]

Amazing!

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by blu
Explain

In case this is a forum forum were we all know each other, I am Blu,

Welcome to the PFs, Blu!