What is life?

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by NoAngst

...Well, it happens all the time when one confuses how things are with how one feels about how things are. This is not to say that what someone else thinks is true and what you think is false; it is to say that you both are merely stating what is "true for you". Unfortunately, what is "true for you" is not the same thing as what is "true in fact". So what is "true in fact"? In this case, I'm afraid the answer is imponderable.

At any given time, in whatever given context, "true in fact" would usually imply a majority approval of some sort: In a court of law it might take the form of a jury verdict; in the scientific arena it might arise from peer approval, and so on.

"Truth" is otherwise a metaphysical concept, and as such it is a notoriously perilous one to fool around with.

If there are not so many breakthroughs in "the meaning of life" lately, this is presumably because the nature of the human being has hardly changed during the past 2500 years, for the "meaning of life" for most of us is a wonderfully personal issue, and it is to that to that very point that people engage in metaphysical pursuits, the point of the person.

The Emperor's New Clothes anology would thus apply only to the extent that we poke our noses into each others' business, a failing equally common to a rational personality, as it is to a poet.

--- RH

[NoAngst]

nor is truth a "metaphyical concept".

Originally Posted by perplexity

At any given time, in whatever given context, "true in fact" would usually imply a majority approval of some sort: In a court of law it might take the form of a jury verdict; in the scientific arena it might arise from peer approval, and so on.

"Truth" is otherwise a metaphysical concept, and as such it is a notoriously perilous one to fool around with.

If there are not so many breakthroughs in "the meaning of life" lately, this is presumably because the nature of the human being has hardly changed during the past 2500 years, for the "meaning of life" for most of us is a wonderfully personal issue, and it is to that to that very point that people engage in metaphysical pursuits, the point of the person.

Truth by concensus or majority opinion is hardly "truth in fact", else for several millennia the earth would have been flat and the sun would have revolved around it. More, the idea that truth is a personal matter as you suggest for the meaning of life is equally absurd, as it childishly overlooks objective reality for which personal belief matters not one iota. I am here reminded of the protagonist in Dostoevsky's Notes From The Underground who complained against the impossible tyranny that 2+2=4, and insisted he had a right to believe that it equal 5. And of course he has that right. But if he stands 2+2 feet away from a railroad track, and jumps the distance thinking he has yet another foot to spare, and a train happens by, that belief of his will not save him from being a mangled, bloody mess on the track.

And such is the problem with metaphysics generally when their whimsical preoccupations brush up against the real world. But as contemplative exercises they certainly serve their purpose, just not as well as the odes and sonnets with which thay share epistemic equivalence but lack the discipline of meter and rhyme.

[pilgrimshost]

If truth is subjective to a persons perspective, and one mans discontent is anothers content,I wonder if reality then is a consept that actually exists because there must be no fixed structure to its construct. I mean if it has so many diversities that conflict with every other consept, and nothing is solid 'fact' just at most a collection of groups that form a collection of shared conformities. Then is to go against the grain actually wrong (ie society) but simply to exist in a perseived reality of its own. This then must give everything 'truth' in a sence of reality, bering in mind 'reality' must be strictly subjective. Weather to say if it is functional or not wouldn't then matter.Would for example; mental illness be therefore a problem or all types of deviant states? A belief in littery anything would thus make it efectivly real for all intesive perposes!

Though this bothers me. There must be a reality that is true in the strictest meaning of the word. Would then the 'conformers' of the subjective reality they collectivly are a part of be possibly down to ignorance to the actual 'truth'. For instance the concept of money and fashion, where people work hard to get the money nessesery to maintain their image and therefore their status within their social group. This is the world of consumerism which in a reality sence is very real-to some. But as they believe, is it nessesery? Why is it so important? But it is their reality never the less.

I wonder is it a sub reality that is not a part of the true reality, more of a substitute, like a choice. Where our true purpose and meaning is an alternate life style. Its quite easy to see a well formed structure to the animal world. possibly, we are so at a loss to the 'meaning of life' because we're running to fast for it to keep up!

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by NoAngst

nor is truth a "metaphyical concept".

Truth by concensus or majority opinion is hardly "truth in fact", else for several millennia the earth would have been flat and the sun would have revolved around it. More, the idea that truth is a personal matter as you suggest for the meaning of life is equally absurd, as it childishly overlooks objective reality for which personal belief matters not one iota.

Who then is the arbiter of this "objective reality"?

"objective reality" is a notional concept.

At any given time, in whatever given context "objective reality" varies according to the audience, a fact which is objectively demonstrable, from the historical example and from experimental observation of human conduct.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

I am here reminded of the protagonist in Dostoevsky's Notes From The Underground who complained against the impossible tyranny that 2+2=4, and insisted he had a right to believe that it equal 5. And of course he has that right. But if he stands 2+2 feet away from a railroad track, and jumps the distance thinking he has yet another foot to spare, and a train happens by, that belief of his will not save him from being a mangled, bloody mess on the track.

While the practice of Mathematics relies upon axioms, the truth is usually supposed to rely upon a proof.
Everything we do requires a faith.
When you put one foot in front of another to expect the Earth to support your weight, that is act of faith, and let us never forget that "truth" is always history;
wisdom is always with hindsight;
what a dull affair our lives would be, but for the constant opportunity to update our personal software.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

And such is the problem with metaphysics generally when their whimsical preoccupations brush up against the real world. But as contemplative exercises they certainly serve their purpose, just not as well as the odes and sonnets with which thay share epistemic equivalence but lack the discipline of meter and rhyme.

Your railway track story introduced a fiction, a fallacy of inductive logic.

To prove it as a truth in scientific terms you would have to conduct a real time experiment with an agreed objective standard to estimate the "belief" of the subject.

As I wrote before, "Truth" is otherwise a metaphysical concept, and as such it is a notoriously perilous one to fool around with. Words are cheap. Anybody may or may or may not pronounce this or that belief as this or that absolute truth.


One might thus reasonably propose that the railway track story would itself be a test of belief, that with a true belief one would indeed be saved from being a mangled, bloody mess on the track.

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

...There must be a reality that is true in the strictest meaning of the word.

Why?

Why must there be a reality, a single reality?

I think of that as an out dated throwback to the pre-cybernetic era, stone age thinking.

In the information age it is a much more workable proposition to suppose that each individual owns an access his own particular set of reality data.

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

This is the world of consumerism which in a reality sence is very real-to some. But as they believe, is it nessesery? Why is it so important? But it is their reality never the less.

Upon examination "truth" in practice does indeed turn out to be very much a matter of market forces.



--- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

So would you say that reality is strictly subjective? Is it possible we are just animals with an over developed brain that can to imagine concepts that over time form into all types of situations and circumanstances that form our history, world, understandings and lives. In other words its all in our heads?

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Who then is the arbiter of this "objective reality"?

Why does 2+2=4 need an arbiter?

Originally Posted by perplexity

"objective reality" is a notional concept.

At any given time, in whatever given context "objective reality" varies according to the audience, a fact which is objectively demonstrable, from the historical example and from experimental observation of human conduct."?

This is obviously false. Gravity, Coriolis, the Doppler effect ad nauseum do not require audience or arbitration to obtain. Neither does 2+2=4. That a tree that falls in the forest to you does not make a noise unless attended by human audience is solipsism of the most infantile kind. No doubt in your weltanschauung, should you suddenly look away from an object, it disappears until such time as you return your attention.

Originally Posted by perplexity

While the practice of Mathematics relies upon axioms, the truth is usually supposed to rely upon a proof.
Everything we do requires a faith.
When you put one foot in front of another to expect the Earth to support your weight, that is act of faith, and let us never forget that "truth" is always history;
wisdom is always with hindsight;
what a dull affair our lives would be, but for the constant opportunity to update our personal software.



Your railway track story introduced a fiction, a fallacy of inductive logic.

To prove it as a truth in scientific terms you would have to conduct a real time experiment with an agreed objective standard to estimate the "belief" of the subject.

As I wrote before, "Truth" is otherwise a metaphysical concept, and as such it is a notoriously perilous one to fool around with. Words are cheap. Anybody may or may or may not pronounce this or that belief as this or that absolute truth.


One might thus reasonably propose that the railway track story would itself be a test of belief, that with a true belief one would indeed be saved from being a mangled, bloody mess on the track.



Why?

Why must there be a reality, a single reality?

I think of that as an out dated throwback to the pre-cybernetic era, stone age thinking.

In the information age it is a much more workable proposition to suppose that each individual owns an access his own particular set of reality data.



Upon examination "truth" in practice does indeed turn out to be very much a matter of market forces.

I'm afraid mere interation of a view is not the same thing as counter-argument. That you choose to conveniently discount argument by mere utterance of assurance to the contrary will not suffice. This seems to be your style, I notice; rather than provide reasoned rejoinder as to why the example does not exactly illustrate that which you say does not exist, you instead pout and stamp your feet, insisting your view is correct regardless. I'm afraid this will not work with me, and evidences a distinct lack of intellectual integrity. Or don't you think the experiment offered Dostoevsky's protagonist is not objective?

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by pilgrimshost

So would you say that reality is strictly subjective?

For the most part what we call "reality" amounts to a consensus of opinion derived from personal experience, but in philosophical terms the consensus is not so much of interest.

What is life?

Life is very much about the development of individuals as individual personalities, hence the personal truth of our perceptions of our personal narrative, hence the differences between us. It is our faults, our lack of truth that defines us. There would not be much of an interest to discuss this at all, would there, were we all acquainted with the very same reality?

And this is not just a poetic whimsy on my part; with the rediscovery of the Anthropic Principle science is once again coming around to thinking of the universe as dependent upon our consiousness, rather than vise-versa, human life as insignificantly incidental.

-- RH.

[pilgrimshost]

Yes I understand what your saying but how is the universe dependent on our consiounsness? If we seaced to exist the universe would still be exactly the same presumibly?

[NoAngst]

Originally Posted by perplexity

For the most part what we call "reality" amounts to a consensus of opinion derived from personal experience, but in philosophical terms the consensus is not so much of interest.

What is life?

Life is very much about the development of individuals as individual personalities, hence the personal truth of our perceptions of our personal narrative, hence the differences between us. It is our faults, our lack of truth that defines us. There would not be much of an interest to discuss this at all, would there, were we all acquainted with the very same reality?

And this is not just a poetic whimsy on my part; with the rediscovery of the Anthropic Principle science is once again coming around to thinking of the universe as dependent upon our consiousness, rather than vise-versa, human life as insignificantly incidental.

I state why truth by concensus doesn't work, give you example, and again you simply ignore it, and instead like the Energizer Bunny just keep going and going and going on with the same insistent retort.

As regards your answer to What is life? (not the original question by the way, but, hey, if you enjoy playing the accordion, have at it), no doubt you have ponderable evidence of this, results from experiments you've conducted, etc. Care to share them? Or are we to take you on your word again? Lemme guess: You will invite us to only look within ourselves to get the proof we need.

How utterly...Emperor's New Clothesish.

[perplexity]

Originally Posted by NoAngst

Why does 2+2=4 need an arbiter?

Mathematics is in effect a language, logical, an expression of a meaning and by no means an absolute one, so with no arbitration of the meaning there is nothing to settle a mathematical issue.

Did they not teach you at school never to forget to quote your units?

2+2=4 is meaningless without units, just as the validity of a logical statement is never better than a premise it relies upon.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

That a tree that falls in the forest to you does not make a noise unless attended by human audience is solipsism of the most infantile kind. No doubt in your weltanschauung, should you suddenly look away from an object, it disappears until such time as you return your attention.

How then do you propose to prove otherwise?

How then do you propose to prove that the Universe exists apart from your awareness of it, that something would otherwise continue without the human race to witness it?

It is a belief, not a truth.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

I'm afraid mere interation of a view is not the same thing as counter-argument. That you choose to conveniently discount argument by mere utterance of assurance to the contrary will not suffice. This seems to be your style, I notice;

Which in turn would seem to be your perception of it. To maintain your fiction of a single reality you attempt to adjust my reality to fit with your own.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

.. rather than provide reasoned rejoinder as to why the example does not exactly illustrate that which you say does not exist, you instead pout and stamp your feet, insisting your view is correct regardless. I'm afraid this will not work with me, and evidences a distinct lack of intellectual integrity.

I was already wondering when it would get around to the ad hominem

An illustration is not a proof.
It lacks integrity to invent evidence to allegedly prove a fact.

Originally Posted by NoAngst

Or don't you think the experiment offered Dostoevsky's protagonist is not objective?

I had rather thought that the introduction of a fiction as if to prove a reality served well enough to make my point, the very purpose presumably being to appeal to the majority opinion of the expected result thus induced.

Ergo your "illustration" only works to the extent that my argument applies; the opinion majority wins the day.

--- RH.