Truth and Belief

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

What is to validate the moment, except for another to match?

That which validates the moment is consciousness, the subject. Pehaps you would be kind enough to help us understand your thoughts in this rather new territory. What is this other match? are you referring to subject and object, what are the variables we are dealing with here?

Ok,I think I know where you are, experience itself needs no validation, only when the conclusion is taken out of context, out of the moment, does it become a probablity. Only when investiagating a probablity is a match with experience/reality necessary to say it is truth or it is false.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Isa!

Excellent point Isa, I think truth has to be limited to the experience, experience is of the present, anything which falls out of the context of the present is just conjecture, this conjecture is in all probablity based on experience. The subject may express this experience to others as truth but it can only really be a probability for his listeners. You are right, it would only be reasonable to assume the existence of objects before experienceing them, and to assume their continued existence after the individual has experience of them. This is however not an absolute,it is not of the moment, so again it is a probablity, truth is limited to experience, experience is limited to the moment/present.

If truth was limited to the experience of the moment we would know as much an oysters, or maybe not even that much. Especially if you mean that knowledge is limited to the experience of the moment, which is possibly what you do mean. It is true that water is H20, but that does not in anyway depend on any experience, although the knowledge that water is H20 does, of course, depend on experience. Truth, and knowledge of the truth are quite different.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

If truth was limited to the experience of the moment we would know as much an oysters, or maybe not even that much. Especially if you mean that knowledge is limited to the experience of the moment, which is possibly what you do mean. It is true that water is H20, but that does not in anyway depend on any experience, although the knowledge that water is H20 does, of course, depend on experience. Truth, and knowledge of the truth are quite different.

kennethamy,

H20 are symbols kennethamy, how do you know what water is if not by experience, can you quench your thirst with those symbols, or would you like the real thing? "Truth and knowledge of truth are quite different." I fully agree, knowledge of truth has been verified by experience, experience is truth, it is true of whatever it experiences.

[perplexity]

Perception monitors variation.

Within the timeless time of an infinitesimal instant there is not the time to vary.

To see that that the sky is blue you need to be awake for long enough for the frequency to register.

A sample of less than 1/500,000,000,000,000 of a second would not possibly register the fact of the light.

This is verifiable by experiment: We fail to percieve what fails to move.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Perception monitors variation.

Within the timeless time of an infinitesimal instant there is not the time to vary.

To see that that the sky is blue you need to be awake for long enough for the frequency to register.

A sample of less than 1/500,000,000,000,000 of a second would not possibly register the fact of the light.

This is verifiable by experiment: We fail to percieve what fails to move.

Because all is motion. If it is not in motion it is not. Perplexity, I am begining to suspect you specialize in obscurity.

"Perception monitors variation."------Indeed but it cannot perceive much of that which is variable.

"To see the sky is blue you need to be awake long enough for the frequency to register." Subject and object stand or fall together! Is not the skys blueness dependent upon the subject. Look, look I closed my eyes the sky nolonger exists!

[perplexity]

Exactly, all is motion.

Truth is a narrative issue.

The more the truth changes, the more concerned we are that it does, so along comes belief to lock it all up.

[Isa]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Isa!

Excellent point Isa, I think truth has to be limited to the experience, experience is of the present, anything which falls out of the context of the present is just conjecture, this conjecture is in all probablity based on experience. The subject may express this experience to others as truth but it can only really be a probability for his listeners. You are right, it would only be reasonable to assume the existence of objects before experienceing them, and to assume their continued existence after the individual has experience of them. This is however not an absolute,it is not of the moment, so again it is a probablity, truth is limited to experience, experience is limited to the moment/present.

"Experience may well be the only way to come into contact with the truth; but just what is it that our experience is coming into contact with"

Ultimately we do not know, apparent reality is enabled by our senses but the which enables also limits, it is the unknown which supports the known. It is what Kant call the thing-in-itself, it manifests to us as apparent reality but we can never know its true nature, because we cannot experience it.

Hi Boagie,

I agree, from a practical stand point one can only experience the truth. But I don't see that experience IS the truth. So what is this thing that is experienced that is called the truth?

It seems too superficial and subjective to simply say that truth is nothing more than human convention. To define truth as being truth simply because it is agreed upon seems to render the concept of truth as useless and meaningless.

But then to view the truth as something analogous to Plato’s Forms, or Jung’s Archetypes, seems to make truth too ethereal and mystical; but then it seems that ethereal and mystical may well be the very nature of the truth.

[boagie]

Originally Posted by perplexity

Exactly, all is motion.

Truth is a narrative issue.

The more the truth changes, the more concerned we are that it does, so along comes belief to lock it all up.

perplexity,

If all is process this is what you mean by narrative--------right? I agree when consiousness is once remove from experience it is not always wise to lock it down with belief, but it is the best that we can do in the absence of direct experience. PS Your links above are not functional.

[perplexity]

Obviously enough, except to agree, the concept of truth is useless and meaningless.



What else would you do with it?

--

"Narrative" also implies the part the observer plays, "..all the World's a stage" etc.

We believe to force the truth to stand still for long enough to discuss.

--

[boagie]

Originally Posted by Isa

Hi Boagie,

I agree, from a practical stand point one can only experience the truth. But I don't see that experience IS the truth. So what is this thing that is experienced that is called the truth?:"

If you express what you experience is that not the truth, experience is the truth of itself, it may not be a full understaning but it is your experience, your truth.



"It seems too superficial and subjective to simply say that truth is nothing more than human convention. To define truth as being truth simply because it is agreed upon seems to render the concept of truth as useless and meaningless."

All meaning is subjective, subjective experience, not hear say.

"But then to view the truth as something analogous to Plato’s Forms, or Jung’s Archetypes, seems to make truth too ethereal and mystical; but then it seems that ethereal and mystical may well be the very nature of the truth.

In my opinion, reality is mystical, it is a dreamy moving not quite thing, only the illusion is the grasp of the ring.