Truth is a complete fiction( So is reality).

[ImmanuelKant]

I think we can do without the whole notion of truth and reality.The traditional notion of truth is that a statement is true iff there some "correspondences" between the statement in question and reality. An attack on this conception of truth is a either/and attack on:
1) The notion of correspondences.
2) The notion of reality.

The notion of "correspondence" is philosophically vague. There is no possible explanation for it without add more fuzziness to this already confusing notion. This becomes the list of things that we know in our gut, but we don t know why. We know in our gut what A corresponds to B( where A is a statement, and B is reality) mean, but we don` t know why it is so. "correspondence" is just an undefined primitive. Why do we have this this undefined primitive? Because it is useful for our ancestors to think in this certain way.


The notion of reality is even more vague. My criticism of reality is similar to my criticism of metaphysics/ ontology in general. There is the platonist or rationalist conception that reality is more than the sum of all spatial-temporal itentities. The empiricalist conception that reality is only the sum of all spatial-temporal entities. The underlying assumption is that one of the above conception is the right one. These are all a priori, fancy speculation when we claim that reality has to be this way or that way( As if there is only two choice). Ultimately, no one knows what reality is suppose to be or else there would be some meta-criterion that would help us decide between the two conception. Let say the empiricalist conception is the right one. That reality is the sum of all spatial-temporal entities. It still does not mean we know what "all" these spatial-temporal entities "is". If we don t know what all these spatial-temporal entities "is", then there is really no way for us to know if our statement really corresponds to one of these entities. We encounter extra problem if reality is the union of more than one physical reality( Ex: disjointed space-time universes). How would we form a correspondence between our statement and a universe where gravity g is such that g=(1.234)Mm/r^2? The question of these other "universes" would be questionable, because we simply do not know.


My conclusion is that notions like truth and reality are really complete fictions. They are undefined primitive that we know in our gut, but don t know why. The best explanation i can come up with is that these undefined primitive is there because it is useful to think they are there for our ancient ancestors, and by extention us. They come out of use in our language, because it aid the survival of our ancestors.

 

[DaveC426913]

Did you have a question, or were you just musing?

 

[ImmanuelKant]

Did you have a question, or were you just musing?

You mean a science question? should it not be in a science forum?

 

[DaveC426913]

You mean a science question? should it not be in a science forum?

Well, maybe or maybe not. But my point is, you've just expressed an opinion. You don't seem to have a question about it, or provided an opening for discussion. I guess the only thing to say is:

How nice for you.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

Well, maybe or maybe not. But my point is, you've just expressed an opinion. You don't seem to have a question about it, or provided an opening for discussion. I guess the only thing to say is:

How nice for you.

But i do have a opening...

Namely,truth is a complete fiction( So is reality).

It is kind of hard to miss. Don t you think? It is how philosophy is done for 2000+ years. It is how it ought to be done in a philosophy forum. It is how it is done in philosophical journals.



A good technical question in philosophy would be something like "What is the analytic/synthetic distinction?", but i under the impression that a philosophy forum ought to be about non-definitional questions in philosophy. You can do that by going to the philosophical dictionary. Maybe you can give me some examples of questions you have in mind?

 

[Evo]

You're braver than I am Dave.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

I am not sure what i did wrong here! I have a thesis, and i support my thesis using cold hard a priori reasoning. It is how philosophy is done in philosophy journals. It is how it is done for 2000+ years, and it is how it ought it be done in a philosophy forum.

 

[Evo]

You're fine, but how do you propose to defend your claim that there is no truth?

And why is "correspondence" vague?

 

[sketchtrack]

I think that there is truth, and there is reality. Reality is the collection of all truth. As a human who is dependent on our senses, memory, and thought alone, we cannot ever perceive the whole truth, or all of reality.

We only observe a small portion of reality. It is also hard to prove that what we observe is the absolute truth. Realistically what we observe with our senses are really just effects of what is real. We see light, which is not the atom, but reflects off of it, we hear sounds which tell us how it is affecting the gasses around us. We never directly observe what it actually is.

Still I think there is truth to our observation. Memory on the other hand uses a less pure form of truth than observation.

When it comes to correspondence, I not sure I know exactly what you mean, could you be more specific. I would say correspondence is only helpful in teaching us how to stake our bets in what is real. Say you like milky way bars, every time you buy one and eat it, it taste good. So you believe it to be real that milky ways taste good to you.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

You're fine, but how do you propose to defend your claim that there is no truth?

And why is "correspondence" vague?

According the the traditional theory of truth, Something is truth if there is a appeal to correspondence and reality.

I show that correspondence is a undefined primitive, a priori intersubjective agreement between our ancestors becuase it is helps them survive for another day.

I show that reality is too "big" of a thing for anyone to answer. It is very how hard to correspond if you don t know what everything in reality "is".


For detail, you really have to read my original post.

 

[sketchtrack]

The notion of "correspondence" is philosophically vague. There is no possible explanation for it without add more fuzziness to this already confusing notion. This becomes the list of things that we know in our gut, but we don t know why. We know in our gut what A corresponds to B( where A is a statement, and B is reality) mean, but we don` t know why it is so. "correspondence" is just an undefined primitive. Why do we have this this undefined primitive? Because it is useful for our ancestors to think in this certain way.

I think what your getting at is that everything is trial and error, and that we observe no cause and effect, nor can we gain truth through reason alone in assessing the questionable unknown, but only through statistical apparent evidence? This isn't true for me, but my fish might be leaning more towards that direction.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

I think what your getting at is that everything is trial and error, and that we observe no cause and effect, nor can we gain truth through reason alone in assessing the questionable unknown, but only through statistical apparent evidence? This isn't true for me, but my fish might be leaning more towards that direction.

No. I am saying we can do away with the whole notion of truth and reality. All of what is left is agreements between people.

 

[sketchtrack]

i guess you are more talking about not physical truth maybe? Like is it a good idea to invade iran, where we have only our gut feelings because we don't know what the outcome will actually be overall?

 

[ImmanuelKant]

i guess you are more talking about not physical truth maybe? Like is it a good idea to invade iran, where we have only our gut feelings because we don't know what the outcome will actually be overall?

Philosophers have very simgular definition of truth. The claim "E=mc^2" is true if and only if it correspondence to reality. This is the traditional notion of truth. I am am againist it my saying it makes no sense. What we have are mere agreements, and conventions. I am sorry, but this is really of a technical nature. I am not sure if i can help you any more.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

another way of looking

What does "#$%^&*" mean? It does not mean anything. It is just a sequence of meaningless symbols on the computer screen. Am i referent to reality, or something objective? NO.


We take "#$%^&*" to mean something only by convention. We say a sequence of symbols arrenged in a certain way, and call this sequence true by appealing to something called "reality", but even "reality" is a arrengement of meaninglesss symbols, conventions, and defintions. What is this leave us. There is no reality or truth. There are only meaningless symbols on a piece of paper. The symbols has meaning be agreement between members of the same linquistic community. That is all.

 

[arildno]

What does "#$%^&*" mean?

You tell me.

It does not mean anything.

Is that a true statement?

It is just a sequence of meaningless symbols on the computer screen.

Is that a true statement?

Am i referent to reality, or something objective? NO.

Are you sure about that?

We take "#$%^&*" to mean something only by convention.

Is that a true statement?

We say a sequence of symbols arrenged in a certain way, and call this sequence true by appealing to something called "reality", but even "reality" is a arrengement of meaninglesss symbols, conventions, and defintions.

Is that a true statement?

 

[ImmanuelKant]

You tell me.

Is that a true statement?
Is that a true statement?

Are you sure about that?

Is that a true statement?

Is that a true statement?

Are you pretending to be a clown?

 

[Alfi]

What does "#$%^&*" mean?

Two questions come to mind. What does that mean to you, and what do you think it means to me?

bang bang bang #$%^&* ouch!, means something to me. ( I hit my finger with a hammer )

bang bang bang #$%^&* ouch!, may or may not mean the same thing to you.

Communication defines words and meaning between individual personal realities.

 

[arildno]

Are you pretending to be a clown?

No, but you have proven yourself to be one.
You are dismissed.

 

[Santa1]

Isn't considering "there is no truth", as a truth a little inconsistent?

 

[ImmanuelKant]

No, but you have proven yourself to be one.
You are dismissed.

Ok. I am wrong. I obviously said something you didn t like( not sure what that is). In any case, i am sorry.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I show that correspondence is a undefined primitive, a priori intersubjective agreement between our ancestors becuase it is helps them survive for another day.

How is test via trial an error to determine 'correspondences' merely an agreement between persons and not a measure of 'reality'?

What does "#$%^&*" mean? It does not mean anything. It is just a sequence of meaningless symbols on the computer screen. Am i referent to reality, or something objective? NO.


We take "#$%^&*" to mean something only by convention. We say a sequence of symbols arrenged in a certain way, and call this sequence true by appealing to something called "reality", but even "reality" is a arrengement of meaninglesss symbols, conventions, and defintions. What is this leave us. There is no reality or truth. There are only meaningless symbols on a piece of paper. The symbols has meaning be agreement between members of the same linquistic community. That is all.

This is in regards to languages, not 'truth' or 'reality'. You'll not likely find many people here who consider words to be direct 'correspondences' to 'reality'. But languages, especially math, can create intellectual models of 'reality' and those models, while not directly congruent with 'reality', can be highly predictive and descriptive of that 'reality'.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

Two questions come to mind. What does that mean to you, and what do you think it means to me?

bang bang bang #$%^&* ouch!, means something to me. ( I hit my finger with a hammer )

bang bang bang #$%^&* ouch!, may or may not mean the same thing to you.

Communication defines words and meaning between individual personal realities.

Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe it is funny( from your point of view). In any case, when i wrote that, i did not intent it to be funny. In fact, i spend many hours on it. I take it very seriously. If you have any honor at all, then place stop making fun( perhaps insult) of it.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

TheStatutoryApe,
How is test via trial an error to determine 'correspondences' merely an agreement between persons and not a measure of 'reality'?

This is going to be dense, but here it goes:

Normally, when people say "reality". They imagine it to be some non-human, mind-independent thing. It is this conception that i am againist.

There many theories on truth( in philosophy), and one of the most popular one is the correspondence theory of truth. Namely, A statement is truth if and only if the statement correspondences to reality. The definition invoke an appeal to "correspondence" and "reality"( the two notion i find problematic, see my first post). The "attack" on this standard conception of truth is supported by me poking holes on "correspondence" and "reality"( first post). I conclude that words like "reality" and "truth" have meaning in the sense that there is a share agreement of what we mean when we use "reality" and "truth". We know what a word mean if we know how it is defined, and used within the linquistic community. When i say "reality" is empty, it is similar to the claim "gold mountain exist" or "santa clause is real", but not exactly like it. If words like "reality" and "truth" is nothing more but a linquistic construct, then all there are are words, and definitions/ usages. The only thing we need are agreements between people. The whole of science, and religion would be no more but stories between different members of the same linquistic group. To summerize: 1) We can do away with "reality", "truth" and "correspondence". 2) All there is are agreements between how words( reality, truth, correspondence) are used.

"This is in regards to languages, not 'truth' or 'reality'. You'll not likely find many people here who consider words to be direct 'correspondences' to 'reality'. But languages, especially math, can create intellectual models of 'reality' and those models, while not directly congruent with 'reality', can be highly predictive and descriptive of that 'reality'. "

Not a problem. We can draw the same analogy between statements in language and equations in math. The equations in physics is formal. They have precise rules of deduction, and starting axioms. The interpretations/meaning of the equations does depend on agreements between members of the same linquistic community. We can do away with the whole notion of the equations corresponding to something called reality. Instead, we ought to say that such interpretation of the equations is good because it predicts results from experiments.

 

[Alfi]

Normally, when people say "reality". They imagine it to be some non-human, mind-independent thing. It is this conception that i am againist.

Normally ? as in a centre point of a Bell curve, when people say "reality"?

"They imagine it to be...,.". Do They? I don't, and I'm normal, in my reality.

Good thing I'm not one of 'they' then. I'm just one of me. :)


Why, if I may ask, are you against the concept that reality will vanish if you are not in it.
Does reality require a mind or a human to be?

 

[ImmanuelKant]

Normally ? as in a centre point of a Bell curve, when people say "reality"?

"They imagine it to be...,.". Do They? I don't, and I'm normal, in my reality.

Good thing I'm not one of 'they' then. I'm just one of me. :)

Maybe i sure be more precise. i am really taking about philosophers, and philosophers of science. They have this conception of reality as being something objective, external, and mind-independent.

Why, if I may ask, are you against the concept that reality will vanish if you are not in it.
Does reality require a mind or a human to be?

I think i am againist the conception of reality( stated above). The traditional notion of a statement being true is seen as a mapping( correspondence) between the statement, and the reality(world). There is a correspondence( mapping) of a internal world( private thoughts) of statement and external world( public thoughts) of facts. I say the external world itself is a conception/story that members of the same linquistic community have. That such mappings is wrong. That all there is is language, and how language is used within the linquistic community. When we make claims of the external world, we are really making a story using words we know within the linquistic community. Even the world itself is word that fits in with some stardard conventions share by a common linquistic community.

 

[sketchtrack]

So are you saying you choose empiricism over rationalism?

 

[sketchtrack]

Without a reality, there can be no knowledge right, so there must be a reality even if the truth behind it is obscure. If there is a reality, there must be a truth even if you don't know it.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

So are you saying you choose empiricism over rationalism?

This is more kin to the later wittgenstein. I think reality is something we don t know. We can map statements with reality( non-human thing), but this mapping does not make sense to me if we don t even know what reality is suppose to be( for the last 2000+ years). This is why i think we can do away with reality. Instead of appealing to something we call reality( a non-human thing), what we really are appeal to are agreements/ defintions of the word "reality". The "conception of reality" is not a non-human thing, but a agreement between members of the same linquistic group.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

Without a reality, there can be no knowledge right, so there must be a reality even if the truth behind it is obscure.

Maybe there is a thing called reality. I just don t think we need it, or have any connection with it. The question " What is reality?" seems to me to be just a bad thing to ask. The tradition notion is that there is something of a internal world of private thoughts, and the external world of facts. The correspondence comes in with when we make a statement in our private thoughts, and "map" it to something we call reality. I think this mapping is illusional. What we are really doing is mapping statements to stories. The stories, and statements are agreed upon conventions, aggreement between members of the same linquistic community.

 

[sketchtrack]

Maybe there is a thing called reality. I just don t think we need it, or have any connection with it. The question " What is reality?" seems to me to be just a bad thing to ask.

If I can make the agreement that I exist, then I can believe that I am part of reality because reality is the collection of all things that exist.

 

[sketchtrack]

I think therefore I exist, I exist therefore there is a reality, I am part of that reality therefore what I think must be of that reality.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

If I can make the agreement that I exist, then I can believe that I am part of reality because reality is the collection of all things that exist.

The fact that you exist does not imply you can see, or there is something "outside" of you.
All you have are thoughts of reality outside yourself created in your imagination by being embedded in a culture where the word "reality" makes any sense.

 

[sketchtrack]

If I exist, then there is at least a reality that only includes me. If I am the only object of existence then I am reality, and my thought comes from me. Whether or not there is metaphysical proof of truth of knowledge is another issue to me.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

If I exist, then there is at least a reality that only includes me. If I am the only object of existence then I am reality, and my thought comes from me. Whether or not there is metaphysical proof of truth of knowledge is another issue to me.

This is not really related to the topic, but here it goes.

The is a general issue of personal identity in philosophy. It is generally agreed upon that you don t know you exist until you know language. You come to interpret your sensations, and form the notion of personal identity.


secondly, if you know you exist, and that you infer you are the only reality. This "reality" would not be mind-indepentent, and objective. This is not the conception of reality i am againist. It is unrelate to my thread.

 

[sketchtrack]

So you are more rationalist than empiricist, but you don't believe in truth which means you aren't a rationalist either. Rationalist think the truth can be found through deductive reasoning inside your mind. Empiricism says that all knowledge comes from outside, and you just have a bank of statistics of what's out there. You are saying that all we have are those statistics, but the statistics aren't real, and they only exist in our heads which is the source, so we have like self created statistics about a fictional world that we make agreements about.

 

[sketchtrack]

This is not really related to the topic, but here it goes.

The is a general issue of personal identity in philosophy. It is generally agreed upon that you don t know you exist until you know language. You come to interpret your sensations, and form the notion of personal identity.
.

I disagree with that, and I don't think it is generally agreed in the world of philosophy. For one, language cannot be had before thought as language is only an expression of thought. All words come from thought therefore, you can rule out the idea that language created self awareness.

 

[sketchtrack]

A symbol is only a tool used as an attempt to communicate thought. Once such effective tools are in place in a community, then thoughts can be more efficiently communicated person to person, and knowledge can be shared. If there is no communication then there is no reason for agreement, but surely communication is not limited to words. Awareness was not invented by words, rather I think it was only a very difficult sharade before word.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

So you are more rationalist than empiricist, but you don't believe in truth which means you aren't a rationalist either. Rationalist think the truth can be found through deductive reasoning inside your mind. Empiricism says that all knowledge comes from outside, and you just have a bank of statistics of what's out there. You are saying that all we have are those statistics, but the statistics aren't real, and they only exist in our heads which is the source, so we have like self created statistics about a fictional world that we make agreements about


I am nore in the tradition of kant , quine , rorty and wittgenstein.

 

[ImmanuelKant]

I disagree with that, and I don't think it is generally agreed in the world of philosophy. For one, language cannot be had before thought as language is only an expression of thought. All words come from thought therefore, you can rule out the idea that language created self awareness.

How do you interpret your sensation?

 

[ImmanuelKant]

A symbol is only a tool used as an attempt to communicate thought. Once such effective tools are in place in a community, then thoughts can be more efficiently communicated person to person, and knowledge can be shared. If there is no communication then there is no reason for agreement, but surely communication is not limited to words. Awareness was not invented by words, rather I think it was only a very difficult sharade before word.

See the work of latter wittgenstein, and W Quine.

 

[sketchtrack]

How do you interpret your sensation?

Your organs that sense things are mechanical in ways. Your eyes do nothing much other that focus light as to provide as information nothing much other than images of light. The same for all other senses. Your senses only give you truth to work with.

 

[Crosson]

My conclusion is that notions like truth and reality are really complete fictions.

What about sense impressions? Are they fictitious?

They are undefined primitive that we know in our gut, but don t know why.

But this does not show that truth and reality are fictions, since 'game' is, for example, an undefined primitive that we know in our gut (we know a game when we see one) but we cannot say why any particular example is a game.

The best explanation i can come up with is that these undefined primitive is there because it is useful to think they are there for our ancient ancestors, and by extention us.

There is no need to give a pseudo-evolutionist explanation, since primitive reactions are the ground level of knowledge (it is a mistake to ask 'why do we have this primitive reaction?').