Refute this idea of truth please

[Anomaly654]

Refute this notion of truth


I take the position that truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality. For the most part it’s there and we find it. We can also ‘create’ our own subjective, mutable truths, for instance a consensus of human minds decide the shape, design, inscriptions and materials used to print bills and stamp coins. Certain denominations thus have attributable value. Attributable value can be falsified or removed from individual components of currency by destruction, defacing, etc. Following this example, truth seems strongly associated with design.

Arguments against the idea of truth as preexistent in reality typically center on the claim that value requires an intellect. Some would argue that any mind is sufficient, i.e., higher animals, the claim goes, also perceive value and impose it into their existence the same as humans. This view is controversial unproven, and I take the position that only a mind with at minimum intellectual capability (human or higher) is able to in any sense impose or apprehend value.

The manifest problem of course is that the so-called “serious metaphysician” is expected to limit himself to natural explanations. I’m a theist and freely accept the ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) so-called for lack of a better designation, is, by this standard, essentially a theology. But I also believe this view has analytical coherence whose function can be traced from hypothesis to instantiation in factual existence.

But MIV doesn’t have to be theology. I recall reading that Richard Dawkins once commented that he’d embrace the idea that aliens from another galaxy created life on earth rather than allow the idea of God. Maybe value was somehow imposed on our existence by aliens. Or one might argue that a mind isn't necessary for value to be preexistent, though I’m not sure what kind of arguments would be raised to support this idea.

It seems to me dismissal of MIV on the basis that no mind capable of imposing value into reality exists so the hypothesis has to be rejected, while commonly accepted today, is nonetheless circular and prevents one from giving objective consideration to the evidence. Specific critiques of MIV are welcome.

[Prismatic567]

Which definition of 'value' are you using?
Check here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

I define what is of value or is a valuable in terms of survival.
Empirically, the ability to breathe is most valuable within a continuum and range of values, note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I take it that anyone would readily exchange whatever assets of value they have with the ability to breathe, or to cure any terminal disease.

Your so-called ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) if has any value must be somehow related to one's survival or one's own existence.
There is no MIV existing independently from human psychology and this is reducible to one's own existential psychology and that of the collective.

Non-humans do have an implied sense of value but such is more instinctive where whatever naturally favor their survival is always preferred over lesser ones.

[Anomaly654]

Which definition of 'value' are you using?
Check here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

I define what is of value or is a valuable in terms of survival.
Empirically, the ability to breathe is most valuable within a continuum and range of values, note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I take it that anyone would readily exchange whatever assets of value they have with the ability to breathe, or to cure any terminal disease.

Your so-called ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) if has any value must be somehow related to one's survival or one's own existence.
There is no MIV existing independently from human psychology and this is reducible to one's own existential psychology and that of the collective.

Non-humans do have an implied sense of value but such is more instinctive where whatever naturally favor their survival is always preferred over lesser ones.

Hi Prismatic. Thanks for responding.
Here is the definition I use for MIV:

Value
Truth and falsity are the two dynamic denominations of value inherent in the information of all existents as a primary “condition of being” from which value—often formulated as goods and evils—derives.

Truth function
Truth potential in an existent engenders natural reciprocal dispositions with truth in other entities, effecting the organization, interaction and compatibility of associated existents, i.e., particulars, properties and relations.
The power of truth to induce proper function between existents operates under the administration of external force (Form) in various modes, resulting in the proper ordering of reality and production within this organization of characteristic functions and goods: unity, harmony, accord, concurrence, perfection, rightness, precision, etc. Falsity is truth corrupted and stands in natural opposition to it.

You've told me how you define value and how MIV would have to be adapted to your view to be valid. Your view stands naturally opposed to the above definition. The question asked in the op remains: how would you rebut my definition of value?

[Silhouette]

Refute this notion of truth

I'm trying to distill this argument to a more syllogistic form to aid in its potential refutation. Perhaps you can assist me.

I take the position that truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality. For the most part it’s there and we find it. We can also ‘create’ our own subjective, mutable truths, for instance a consensus of human minds decide the shape, design, inscriptions and materials used to print bills and stamp coins. Certain denominations thus have attributable value. Attributable value can be falsified or removed from individual components of currency by destruction, defacing, etc. Following this example, truth seems strongly associated with design.

This paragraph would appear to contain the conclusion, that "truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality".
The mention of the possibility of subjective truth appears to be an auxiliary case, not fundamental to your argument but supporting of it.

Arguments against the idea of truth as preexistent in reality typically center on the claim that value requires an intellect. Some would argue that any mind is sufficient, i.e., higher animals, the claim goes, also perceive value and impose it into their existence the same as humans. This view is controversial unproven, and I take the position that only a mind with at minimum intellectual capability (human or higher) is able to in any sense impose or apprehend value.

This paragraph suggests that counter arguments are regularly invalid - thereby at least supporting your position if not proving it.
So you do not subscribe to the idea that "value requires an intellect", and go on to clarify that minds would at least need to be human in order to value in such a way - an auxiliary supporting point once again.
Is this premise intended to set up a proof by contradiction? That value requires intellect?

The manifest problem of course is that the so-called “serious metaphysician” is expected to limit himself to natural explanations. I’m a theist and freely accept the ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) so-called for lack of a better designation, is, by this standard, essentially a theology. But I also believe this view has analytical coherence whose function can be traced from hypothesis to instantiation in factual existence.

Is this the second premise? That so-called serious metaphysicians are expected to limit themselves to natural explanations?
Is this meant to be counter to the premise that value requires intellect?
The rest appears only to be a qualification of any possible associations with theism.

It seems to me dismissal of MIV on the basis that no mind capable of imposing value into reality exists so the hypothesis has to be rejected, while commonly accepted today, is nonetheless circular and prevents one from giving objective consideration to the evidence. Specific critiques of MIV are welcome.

It seems that here we attempt the argument:
P1) no mind capable of imposing value into reality exists
P2) (supposed) objective consideration requires this
therefore it is not objectively the case that there is no mind capable of imposing value into reality

Here valuation heavily privileges objective criteria over subjective, as though objective valuation is the primary criterium, which of course is circular: if you presume objective truth and value, and require objective truth and value in order to disprove this, then of course you are "begging the question".

So in conclusion, I do not see a valid syllogism that shows contradiction through:
1) value requires an intellect
2) serious metaphysicians are expected to limit themselves to natural explanations
to
3) truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality

[Prismatic567]

Which definition of 'value' are you using?
Check here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

I define what is of value or is a valuable in terms of survival.
Empirically, the ability to breathe is most valuable within a continuum and range of values, note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I take it that anyone would readily exchange whatever assets of value they have with the ability to breathe, or to cure any terminal disease.

Your so-called ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) if has any value must be somehow related to one's survival or one's own existence.
There is no MIV existing independently from human psychology and this is reducible to one's own existential psychology and that of the collective.

Non-humans do have an implied sense of value but such is more instinctive where whatever naturally favor their survival is always preferred over lesser ones.

Hi Prismatic. Thanks for responding.
Here is the definition I use for MIV:

Value
Truth and falsity are the two dynamic denominations of value inherent in the information of all existents as a primary “condition of being” from which value—often formulated as goods and evils—derives.

Truth function
Truth potential in an existent engenders natural reciprocal dispositions with truth in other entities, effecting the organization, interaction and compatibility of associated existents, i.e., particulars, properties and relations.
The power of truth to induce proper function between existents operates under the administration of external force (Form) in various modes, resulting in the proper ordering of reality and production within this organization of characteristic functions and goods: unity, harmony, accord, concurrence, perfection, rightness, precision, etc. Falsity is truth corrupted and stands in natural opposition to it.

You've told me how you define value and how MIV would have to be adapted to your view to be valid. Your view stands naturally opposed to the above definition. The question asked in the op remains: how would you rebut my definition of value?

How is my definition of value and MIV being reduced to survival wrong?

Note truth and falsity are also reducible to survival if you know how to navigate philosophically via the complex labyrinth down to the source.

[Anomaly654]

Refute this notion of truth

This paragraph would appear to contain the conclusion, that "truth is pre-existent in the fabric of reality". The mention of the possibility of subjective truth appears to be an auxiliary case, not fundamental to your argument but supporting of it.

You either over thought the op or I didn’t communicate clearly.

Yes, conclusion is truth is pre-existent in the fabric of reality. I used an example of the existence of subjective truth to suggest that the two—objective, absolute pre-existent truth and mutable subjective truth are compatible features of the same reality. In retrospect, it should have been left out. Didn’t present it clearly, failed to provide examples and the inclusion of attributable subjective truth wasn’t necessary to the request for refutation of the conclusion.

This paragraph suggests that counter arguments are regularly invalid - thereby at least supporting your position if not proving it.
So you do not subscribe to the idea that "value requires an intellect", and go on to clarify that minds would at least need to be human in order to value in such a way - an auxiliary supporting point once again.
Is this premise intended to set up a proof by contradiction? That value requires intellect?

No, just trying to flesh out what I understand to be typical views of truth as starting point for discussion. Most require a mind as prerequisite to value. I agree with the premise, but assume some may argue that a mind isn’t needed; I’d like to hear those arguments. I also believe value requires a mind. Obviously, if truth is a pre-existent component of reality, it couldn’t have come from a human mind.

Within philosophy particularly and the non-philosophical world generally, it appears truth is assumed to be entirely a feature of human minds. I recall reading an argument some years ago by someone who included any intelligent mind as recognizers/formulators of truth. Hence the mention of varieties of minds relative to value.

Is this the second premise? That so-called serious metaphysicians are expected to limit themselves to natural explanations?
Is this meant to be counter to the premise that value requires intellect?

No, I read a paper recently in which it was put forth roughly that “serious metaphysicians” limited themselves to naturalist methodology. It was included 1) to see if the notion prompted agreement or dispute, 2) to contrast what I take to be the status quo position with the implications raised by MIV.

It seems that here we attempt the argument:
P1) no mind capable of imposing value into reality exists
P2) (supposed) objective consideration requires this
therefore it is not objectively the case that there is no mind capable of imposing value into reality

Here valuation heavily privileges objective criteria over subjective, as though objective valuation is the primary criterium, which of course is circular: if you presume objective truth and value, and require objective truth and value in order to disprove this, then of course you are "begging the question".

So in conclusion, I do not see a valid syllogism that shows contradiction through:
1) value requires an intellect
2) serious metaphysicians are expected to limit themselves to natural explanations
to
3) truth is pre-existent in the fabric of reality

1) I hadn’t intended to frame the discussion in formal logic. The salient points in my thinking are:

1. Many suppose that all value is subjective and mutable
2. Most of these appear to suppose that a mind necessarily precedes value
3. Serious metaphysicians are expected to accept the conclusion that no mind could exist antecedent to those produced by evolution (restatement of 1)

I believe:
1) value exists in two denominations, true and false, in the fabric of reality, from which the two in amalgam generate all goods and evils (factual and moral).
2) of the two, truth is by its nature logically objective and absolute; the false can be objective but never absolute
3) Truth is found in things—propositions, scientific laws, semantics, etc. Some truth is attributed by human minds, but truth qua truth is discovered and preexists human minds.
4) value requires a mind. This necessitates a mind preexisting human minds capable of possessing/imposing value on the reality we find ourselves in.

From this I generate MIV as a hypothesis to answer the questions, “what is value, where is it located, how does it operate”?
I suppose I’d frame it like this:
1) value necessitates a mind for its existence
2) though value can be imposed by human minds, it exists prior to the existence of human minds as a feature of the reality we find ourselves in
3) value must have been designed into reality by a mind prior to human minds

This should be preceded by having provided evidence for the assumption in 2, but figured it would likely come up in discussion.

[Anomaly654]

Which definition of 'value' are you using?
Check here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

I define what is of value or is a valuable in terms of survival.
Empirically, the ability to breathe is most valuable within a continuum and range of values, note Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. I take it that anyone would readily exchange whatever assets of value they have with the ability to breathe, or to cure any terminal disease.

Your so-called ‘metaphysic of inherent value’ (MIV) if has any value must be somehow related to one's survival or one's own existence.
There is no MIV existing independently from human psychology and this is reducible to one's own existential psychology and that of the collective.

Non-humans do have an implied sense of value but such is more instinctive where whatever naturally favor their survival is always preferred over lesser ones.

Hi Prismatic. Thanks for responding.
Here is the definition I use for MIV:

Value
Truth and falsity are the two dynamic denominations of value inherent in the information of all existents as a primary “condition of being” from which value—often formulated as goods and evils—derives.

Truth function
Truth potential in an existent engenders natural reciprocal dispositions with truth in other entities, effecting the organization, interaction and compatibility of associated existents, i.e., particulars, properties and relations.
The power of truth to induce proper function between existents operates under the administration of external force (Form) in various modes, resulting in the proper ordering of reality and production within this organization of characteristic functions and goods: unity, harmony, accord, concurrence, perfection, rightness, precision, etc. Falsity is truth corrupted and stands in natural opposition to it.

You've told me how you define value and how MIV would have to be adapted to your view to be valid. Your view stands naturally opposed to the above definition. The question asked in the op remains: how would you rebut my definition of value?

How is my definition of value and MIV being reduced to survival wrong?

Note truth and falsity are also reducible to survival if you know how to navigate philosophically via the complex labyrinth down to the source.

I didn't say your view was wrong. I believe using the MIV mentioned in the op I can provide evidence that your view is correct, or that it stands in some demonstrable state of legitimacy. I only noted that your and my approach are opposites and that in stating your view of value there was no refutation of the idea that value pre-exists human minds because it's found woven into reality.

[Anomaly654]

Maybe another way of looking at this for discussion:

I define truth as an object, a real thing (real in its base sense) that has properties (objective truth). It's properties are harmony, accord, propriety, unity, correspondence, union, etc. Falsity, also objective, has properties like discord, conflict, impropriety, disconnection, etc. Falsity, while objective, can never be absolute because its nature is toward chaos and disintegration. Degeneration can't reach the absolute state. Descent into nothingness is the natural outcome of falsity unchecked. Truth qua truth, on the other hand, is the only real absolute. There is no possible world in which it is always absolutely better to attain to higher truth states because the ultimate truth state is absolute perfection. (More discussion points)

It seems to me the naturalist would claim that truth as a purely subjective entity is itself only a property of other things.

Btw, by 'base sense' I mean existents are made out of information. On this view, James Saint's affectance would be raw [unformed] information or being in my world, though he may disagree with this notion from his point of view. Information can be objects or subjects, things or attributes. Anything capable of supplying information to the 'living information' of a mind for apprehension has reality of some sort. These are presuppositions I use but not necessary to the idea of truth as an objective thing.

[Prismatic567]

You've told me how you define value and how MIV would have to be adapted to your view to be valid. Your view stands naturally opposed to the above definition. The question asked in the op remains: how would you rebut my definition of value?

How is my definition of value and MIV being reduced to survival wrong?

Note truth and falsity are also reducible to survival if you know how to navigate philosophically via the complex labyrinth down to the source.

I didn't say your view was wrong. I believe using the MIV mentioned in the op I can provide evidence that your view is correct, or that it stands in some demonstrable state of legitimacy. I only noted that your and my approach are opposites and that in stating your view of value there was no refutation of the idea that value pre-exists human minds because it's found woven into reality.

I have argued elsewhere, there is no value - absolute, objective, - that is independent of the human conditions.
This is reflected in the arguments between the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical anti-Realists [mine] views.

Note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which I do not agree, thus no pre-existed nor existing value independent of the human conditions.

The tendency towards any 'value' independent and pre-exists human beings is a psychological issue which is reducible to survival individually and collectively.

[Anomaly654]

I have argued elsewhere, there is no value - absolute, objective, - that is independent of the human conditions.
This is reflected in the arguments between the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical anti-Realists [mine] views.

Note this;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
which I do not agree, thus no pre-existed nor existing value independent of the human conditions.

The tendency towards any 'value' independent and pre-exists human beings is a psychological issue which is reducible to survival individually and collectively.

Okay, but rather than answer the question I asked you just state your opinion that you don't believe in preexistent value and say you've argued it elsewhere. Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?

I'm no philosopher but it seems to me that if one answers either true or false to the above questions it suggests that value existed in reality from day one. To suggest that the questions can't be answered because there was no value in reality until minds evolved to endorse it seems to me the intellectual equivalent of covering one's ears and chanting 'nyah, nyah, nyah…" in order to make the questions go away. How would you approach this?

[Silhouette]

Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?

Just to be pedantic, scientific laws break down at "ground zero" of the Big Bang. It's more like they were converged to just after it - so we already have an example of truth, at least in the form of scientific laws, not pre-existing in the universe right there.

More generally speaking, just as dissecting the brain and finding no consciousness, finding no algorithms deep inside a circuit board, or manipulating a flower and finding no intrinsic colour, discovering no coldness at the essence of a snowflake, or drilling to the centre of the earth and finding no centre of gravity, we attribute truth to reality. We don't find truth in it. We discover ways in which to model the world that describe and predict it to a certain degree of accuracy. Calling 4 "4" and 8 "8" is just seeing a shape, making a noise, and saying it and some arrangement of reality are the same. It's then no shock that, given our association, we find our association is correct when 4 + 4 = 8. Circular.

I'm no philosopher but it seems to me that if one answers either true or false to the above questions it suggests that value existed in reality from day one. To suggest that the questions can't be answered because there was no value in reality until minds evolved to endorse it seems to me the intellectual equivalent of covering one's ears and chanting 'nyah, nyah, nyah…" in order to make the questions go away. How would you approach this?

Is human vision a perfect representation of what reality "looks like"? The culmination of all our senses seems to enable us to survive for some quantum of time, at least in the way humans happen to understand time. What if there was so much more to reality than we could apparently perceive of it? More than extra dimensions, but entirely revolutionary versions of perception that we could never even possibly conceive? What if we see only the very tip of the iceberg? If we have any access to "truth preexistent in reality" we are complacent beyond belief to think it's anything more than an iota - if at all. In fact, a theory I have landed upon, and take really very seriously is that it's lies and falsity that give meaning to anything - not truth. Truth says nothing, it's tautology. But when we say "that is a tree" and point to a tree, the word tree isn't what we're pointing at, we're not touching anything, you have to understand the gesture of pointing as following a line from the finger to the first general arrangment of presumed common sensation and pattern recognition as the intended subject of conversation... there are so many factors to distort the fact that "it seems like something exists" into something that means anything to anyone. The understanding of truth at all requires this, paradoxically, and it needs a mind for all the sense data to be passed into to even exist as a concept, nevermind relate to anything at all in the first place.

[Anomaly654]

Just to be pedantic, scientific laws break down at "ground zero" of the Big Bang. It's more like they were converged to just after it - so we already have an example of truth, at least in the form of scientific laws, not pre-existing in the universe right there.

Another way of interpreting the data at ground zero is showing truth at work as the primary underlying force initiating the sort of composition from hot, dense unformed information into (in the case of empirical reality) the formation of matter and its governing laws. Rather than a chaotic, uncontrolled expansion, it seems reasonable to suppose that the information enclosed in the singularity would, in a reality in which truth is the underlying dynamic and primary organizing principle, proceed to an orderly convergence of patterning in a way that suggests design, as opposed to spiraling off into chaos.

More generally speaking, just as dissecting the brain and finding no consciousness, finding no algorithms deep inside a circuit board, or manipulating a flower and finding no intrinsic colour, discovering no coldness at the essence of a snowflake, or drilling to the centre of the earth and finding no centre of gravity, we attribute truth to reality. We don't find truth in it. We discover ways in which to model the world that describe and predict it to a certain degree of accuracy. Calling 4 "4" and 8 "8" is just seeing a shape, making a noise, and saying it and some arrangement of reality are the same. It's then no shock that, given our association, we find our association is correct when 4 + 4 = 8. Circular.

Again, that’s just one interpretation of facts. Seems reasonable enough except the explanations lack an organizational standard. We can say the non-contact forces order matter, but what orders the non-contact forces and what does matter so-called have that it follows the direction of the forces acting on it in the same, specific patterns of operation ad infinitum?

A reason consciousness is not in the brain could be because the brain isn’t consciousness, isn’t the person. Lack of algorithms in circuitry itself ignores that those algorithms still play a fundamental role in directing the operation of various currents through the circuits in predesigned ways, and so on. How would you prove that the discovery of facts to model the world and make true predictions of it are not due to the compelling direction of a non-empirical force operating as a power to create the property of correspondence which directs and completes the discovery function? The rest of your inquiry into the mind’s computational operations with reality can be demonstrated by the same active principle truth imposes on the proper and sufficient operation of each example. If truth is the dynamic quality governing the proper operation of existents, it seems that saying in effect ‘this is just the way things operate’ would be circular.

At the end of the day I acknowledge the view of truth I hold is speculative. This has to be so of any non-empirical reality. But speculation prevails on all fronts. Do you have any basis other than the usual lack of empirical evidence to demonstrate that the view of truth I’m defending is false? Lack of empirical confirmation is evidence that I think grows weaker as logical evidence for a non-empirical proposition becomes stronger.

What if there was so much more to reality than we could apparently perceive of it? More than extra dimensions, but entirely revolutionary versions of perception that we could never even possibly conceive? What if we see only the very tip of the iceberg? If we have any access to "truth preexistent in reality" we are complacent beyond belief to think it's anything more than an iota - if at all. In fact, a theory I have landed upon, and take really very seriously is that it's lies and falsity that give meaning to anything - not truth. Truth says nothing, it's tautology. But when we say "that is a tree" and point to a tree, the word tree isn't what we're pointing at, we're not touching anything, you have to understand the gesture of pointing as following a line from the finger to the first general arrangment of presumed common sensation and pattern recognition as the intended subject of conversation... there are so many factors to distort the fact that "it seems like something exists" into something that means anything to anyone. The understanding of truth at all requires this, paradoxically, and it needs a mind for all the sense data to be passed into to even exist as a concept, nevermind relate to anything at all in the first place.

This is an interesting take on things. Agree readily with your implication that there’s possibly way more than meets the eye in the grand scheme of things, but will have to think though your idea that “it’s lies and falsity that give meaning to anything”. I agree too that truth in the way I understand and present it here says nothing. More accurately, it “does” something: it sets the stage for the conscious information of minds to do the thinking and saying in proper order and function with the informational content they work with.

[Prismatic567]

Okay, but rather than answer the question I asked you just state your opinion that you don't believe in preexistent value and say you've argued it elsewhere. Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?

I agree with Silhouette's response to your points.

Re 'I have argued elsewhere' refer a complex web of arguments which is too tedious to repeat here. I believe we may have gone through this long long ago in this forum??

Note according to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures intersubjectively agreed by a group of scientists. Therefore there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on Earth.

4 + 4 = 8 is a priori, i.e. not a posteriori.
In this case, it is true before you or most people were born, but there no such truth without any humans [past and evolved] involved.

I'm no philosopher but it seems to me that if one answers either true or false to the above questions it suggests that value existed in reality from day one. To suggest that the questions can't be answered because there was no value in reality until minds evolved to endorse it seems to me the intellectual equivalent of covering one's ears and chanting 'nyah, nyah, nyah…" in order to make the questions go away. How would you approach this?

I agree with what you stated about reality so far, but that is limited to the common sense, conventional or scientific perspective which are limited.
To do philosophy-proper one has to go beyond the above perspectives to higher philosophical perspectives.

Note I regularly quoted Russell's;

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Russell went on to conclude what Philosophy is about, i.e. it has no certainty and final answers but rather a never ending drive of endless questioning;

Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.

Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy;
Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

Why you want certainty and final answers is due to some subliminal psychological drives which are naturally are triggered by some defense mechanism to reify something out of nothing. Thus I suggest 'Know Thyself' [Socrates] i.e. research and explore what is going on in your brain.

[Anomaly654]

Okay, but rather than answer the question I asked you just state your opinion that you don't believe in preexistent value and say you've argued it elsewhere. Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?

according to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures intersubjectively agreed by a group of scientists. Therefore there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on Earth.

4 + 4 = 8 is a priori, i.e. not a posteriori.
In this case, it is true before you or most people were born, but there no such truth without any humans [past and evolved] involved.

Okay, couple questions.
1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists in some galaxy in the universe an as yet undiscovered solar system consisting of a sun, four planets and two moons. According to the above, is the position you take that there is no such system with that number of bodies until it's discovered by at least one perceiving mind?
2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?

Are you an idealist?

[Prismatic567]

Okay, but rather than answer the question I asked you just state your opinion that you don't believe in preexistent value and say you've argued it elsewhere. Is it true or false that the scientific laws were in effect forming the universe from the Big Bang to the first appearance of life on earth? Was it true or false that 4 + 4 = 8 prior to life on earth?

according to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures intersubjectively agreed by a group of scientists. Therefore there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on Earth.

4 + 4 = 8 is a priori, i.e. not a posteriori.
In this case, it is true before you or most people were born, but there no such truth without any humans [past and evolved] involved.

Okay, couple questions.
1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists in some galaxy in the universe an as yet undiscovered solar system consisting of a sun, four planets and two moons.
According to the above, is the position you take that there is no such system with that number of bodies until it's discovered by at least one perceiving mind?

2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the ]universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?

Note the points;

1. Empirically and rationally possible
2. Empirically and rationally impossible

If you note the question you raised in 1 above, all bolded items are related to empirically-related variables which has proven to exist as far as observed and verified.
Thus it is possible for such an empirically-possible world to exist say 100 light years away from Earth.
To confirm whether such a place exists, it is the question of bringing in the empirical evidence.

If you insist God is that bearded man in the sky, I can agree that is a possibility, but to confirm, bring the empirical evidence [bolded are empirical] for verification.

However the ultimate God that is claimed by the Abrahamic is non-empirical nor rational, thus impossible to be verified as real.
See my argument; viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

Are you an idealist?

Nah, not an absolute idealist.

If in this perspective, I am an Empirical Realist, i.e. there exists an external and independent reality [empirical rational] from my own self, but all these are subjected to the human conditions. In this case I am also a transcendental idealist.

You are more of an idealist if you think you are not one.
From what you have posted you are an empirical idealist and at the same time a transcendental realist.
From this perspective you THINK there is an external reality independent of your self [transcendental realist] but what is really real to you is only in your mind [i.e. empirical idealist].
Example you perceive and think [based on mind] there is a real table you can see but ultimately that is only in your mind via perception and as Russell stated, perhaps there is no real table at all.

[Anomaly654]

Note the points;

1. Empirically and rationally possible
2. Empirically and rationally impossible

If you note the question you raised in 1 above, all bolded items are related to empirically-related variables which has proven to exist as far as observed and verified.
Thus it is possible for such an empirically-possible world to exist say 100 light years away from Earth.
To confirm whether such a place exists, it is the question of bringing in the empirical evidence.

But you've sidestepped my questions completely. Again:
1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists in some galaxy in the universe an as yet undiscovered solar system consisting of a sun, four planets and two moons. According to the above, is the position you take that there is no such system with that number of bodies until it's discovered by at least one perceiving mind?
2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?

Would you please limit your next post to answering these specific questions for the sake of forward-moving discussion?

If you insist God is that bearded man in the sky, I can agree that is a possibility, but to confirm, bring the empirical evidence [bolded are empirical] for verification.

I have no interest in discussing God's existence. Not the topic of this thread.

However the ultimate God that is claimed by the Abrahamic is non-empirical nor rational, thus impossible to be verified as real.
See my argument; viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

I read your argument some time ago. The argument isn't compelling on essentially the same grounds James S. Saint (first responder to that thread) noted.

[Anomaly654]

Correction from a few posts back. I wrote this:

There is no possible world in which it is always absolutely better to attain to higher truth states because the ultimate truth state is absolute perfection.

I meant this:
There is no possible world in which it is not always absolutely better to attain to higher truth states because the ultimate truth state is absolute perfection.

My bad.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Refute this notion of truth


I take the position that truth is preexistent in the fabric of reality.

I don't really know what to make of this. Either you are using the idea of truth being reality as in

: the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY

But then it is not in reality, it is reality.

or you are using truth more in the sense it is used in philosophy

which would be something like an idea or assertion or conclusion or belief about reality that is correct, that matches reality. In this case truth and reality are not in the same type of category. The truths are about reality. They point toward it and describe it. So they are not in reality 'out there' but in minds and in communication between minds. Of course minds are in reality, so truths would be in reality. But only that part. The mind part. The communication part.

[Prismatic567]

Note the points;

1. Empirically and rationally possible
2. Empirically and rationally impossible

If you note the question you raised in 1 above, all bolded items are related to empirically-related variables which has proven to exist as far as observed and verified.
Thus it is possible for such an empirically-possible world to exist say 100 light years away from Earth.
To confirm whether such a place exists, it is the question of bringing in the empirical evidence.

But you've sidestepped my questions completely. Again:
1) Let's assume for the sake of argument that there exists in some galaxy in the universe an as yet undiscovered solar system consisting of a sun, four planets and two moons. According to the above, is the position you take that there is no such system with that number of bodies until it's discovered by at least one perceiving mind?

I believe I have answered the above.

Note conventionally and scientifically, I am not saying "there is no such system until it is discovered by one perceiving mind".
My take would be, it is possible [empirically] for such a system to exists.
The solar system is possible [empirically] to exists because the claim is made upon empirically possible objects and these can be empirically verified upon available evidence.

There is another higher philosophical perspective re 'Is there a sound if a tree falls in a forest and there are no humans around'. That is a different issue from the above.

2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?

Would you please limit your next post to answering these specific questions for the sake of forward-moving discussion?

The universe was formed and is still forming based on the human-justified Theory of the Big Bang which is merely a speculative and is an untestable theory.

You cannot presume there are certain existing scientific laws before they are discovered by human scientists.
What is scientific is conditioned upon the existence of human producing those scientific laws.
Therefore if no humans, there are no scientific laws. Note Kant has argued strongly for this point.

There is no way humans will ever know the very beginning or the first cause. What we end up with is an infinite regression.

At Wittgenstein stated;
'Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent'

Therefore one must resolve to shut-up on this matter since there is nothing to speak of.

However theists and others cannot resist being silent, but due to subliminal psychological impulses jumped to conclusion there is something, a first cause, i.e. God without any logical and sound justifications for it.

The consequences of this psychological impulse is so desperate within SOME theists that they will not hesitate to kill to defend and maintain their secured psychological status. In addition there a whole range of evil and violent acts associated with theism by SOME theists.

[Anomaly654]

I don't really know what to make of this. Either you are using the idea of truth being reality as in: the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY But then it is not in reality, it is reality.

Yes, I hypothesize that truth is real. Everything that exists is a truthbearer: matter, minds, universals, properties, etc. I understand the discord this idea raises in philosophy proper. It proposes that a non-empirical quality is essentially the “glue” that binds all of reality, empirical and non-empirical, together. I noted in the op the status quo idea that the “serious metaphysician” limits his inquiry to the natural sphere. I’m self taught and unqualified to be a serious metaphysician; hence my hypothesis.

truth…in the sense it is used in philosophy

…would be something like an idea or assertion or conclusion or belief about reality that is correct, that matches reality. In this case truth and reality are not in the same type of category. The truths are about reality. They point toward it and describe it. So they are not in reality 'out there' but in minds and in communication between minds. Of course minds are in reality, so truths would be in reality. But only that part. The mind part. The communication part.

[/quote]
Understood that philosophical orthodoxy keep empirical and non-empirical at arm’s length in separate categories. This seems based on the idea that matter is the primary reality—many call the material the “actual” world as you noted also. I take the position that abstract information is the primary reality because it occurred to me years ago that thing and attribute had to have some recognizable connection and only thing I could come up with is that both offer information to perception. So, I start there. From this perspective, “actual” reality and abstract entities are just different modes of information. Factual is “louder” and commands more of our attention, but is essentially the static stage dynamic consciousness plays out on.

The rule that the things and properties have to be kept categorically distinct seems too restrictive to me in light of all that’s not known and several things that are. Minds still interact with bodies. The idea that the mind is the brain seems to have suffered significant setbacks the last few decades. And evolutionary explanations for the moral sense lack compelling explanation.

On the other hand, a value-endued reality has a lot of interesting (to me anyway) connections. The notion of truth as just a feature of propositions or beliefs rises to a much larger role as a value mechanism for all existence. From the starting point “How would Avicenna’s idea that truth is a component of reality (essence) work? How would that play out?”, the conclusion I came to is that there are a number of interesting logical scenarios just on the secular side of things, probably the most significant of which is that value can be mapped to cognition as the prime mover of human behaviour. There are even more possibilities on the theological side. I can only imagine where the mechanism of value could go in the mind of an actual philosopher, but suspect no one dare buck the status quo.

[Anomaly654]

I believe I have answered the above.

Note conventionally and scientifically, I am not saying "there is no such system until it is discovered by one perceiving mind".
My take would be, it is possible [empirically] for such a system to exists.

So once empirically discovered, was it true that such a system preexisted its discovery?

2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?

The universe was formed and is still forming based on the human-justified Theory of the Big Bang which is merely a speculative and is an untestable theory.

Actually, it appears to me the BB has been mathematically tested and moved from "speculative" to "probable". I find it revealing that you're retreating from the assuredness of your faith in science to "speculative" and "untestable". You're quite a dancer.

You cannot presume there are certain existing scientific laws before they are discovered by human scientists.

I don't presume this. We're informed of it by science. It is suggested by empirically tested means that these laws were necessarily in place from essentially the beginning of the BB to form the universe that we see now. This seems to be the doctrine currently employed.

What is scientific is conditioned upon the existence of human producing those scientific laws.
Therefore if no humans, there are no scientific laws. Note Kant has argued strongly for this point.

I leave this last quote as a testament and standard to those who still maintain that materialism isn't a religion. Thanks for your participation, Prism.

[Karpel Tunnel]

I don't really know what to make of this. Either you are using the idea of truth being reality as in: the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY But then it is not in reality, it is reality.

Yes, I hypothesize that truth is real.

I think we need a very clear definition of truth. Since you quote that definition of truth - one amongst a few - I need to repeat that truth is not in reality, but is reality, by that definition.

Everything that exists is a truthbearer: matter, minds, universals, properties, etc.

I don't know what this means. Some of this is empirical, some is not.

I understand the discord this idea raises in philosophy proper. It proposes that a non-empirical quality is essentially the “glue” that binds all of reality, empirical and non-empirical, together.

Some of it is non-empirical, some is.

I noted in the op the status quo idea that the “serious metaphysician” limits his inquiry to the natural sphere. I’m self taught and unqualified to be a serious metaphysician; hence my hypothesis.

I don't know what a serious metaphysician is, but since what you describe is just one kind of metaphysics, I don't see philosophy ruling out what you are saying, whatever it is.

Understood that philosophical orthodoxy keep empirical and non-empirical at arm’s length in separate categories.

If there was a philoosphical orthodoxy, then there would be a consensus. I don't see this.

This seems based on the idea that matter is the primary reality—many call the material the “actual” world as you noted also. I take the position that abstract information is the primary reality because it occurred to me years ago that thing and attribute had to have some recognizable connection and only thing I could come up with is that both offer information to perception.

Some think attributes are empircal. Soem think things are. So you are not distinguishing your ideas from what philosophers might put forward as true.

So, I start there. From this perspective, “actual” reality and abstract entities are just different modes of information. Factual is “louder” and commands more of our attention, but is essentially the static stage dynamic consciousness plays out on.

On the other hand, a value-endued reality has a lot of interesting (to me anyway) connections. The notion of truth as just a feature of propositions or beliefs rises to a much larger role as a value mechanism for all existence.

I think, but I am not sure, that you are conflating truths with things like universals or laws.

Like with the latter that there are rules for the behavior of stuff we experience and we don't experience those rules, we deduce them. But the truths would be the assertions of those laws, for example, not the patterns/rules out there in reality. I am not making a metaphysical assertion here and so disagreeing with you. I am making a language based criticism. I htink, but I am not sure, you are using the words poorly.

From the starting point “How would Avicenna’s idea that truth is a component of reality (essence) work? How would that play out?”, the conclusion I came to is that there are a number of interesting logical scenarios just on the secular side of things, probably the most significant of which is that value can be mapped to cognition as the prime mover of human behaviour.

I don't know his work, but I just read a summary and he seems to view truth as a propositional something. Like a stone is not a truth. Though it is real.

There are even more possibilities on the theological side. I can only imagine where the mechanism of value could go in the mind of an actual philosopher, but suspect no one dare buck the status quo.

I think it's probably not useful to posit yourself as raining rebellious notions that will feel threatening to the status quo. 1) I don't think you are correct about the orthodoxy or that there is one in the way you mean and 2) there sure as hell isn't one here. A read of anyone from Ecmandu, to Unwrong, to myself - when I venture into my own beliefs in metaphysics which I rarely do but have done - to Artimas and more...will show ideas that if there is anything like a set of ideas that are orthodox in philosophy, they do not control the range of ideas presented here. IOW I do not think it is useful to frame the issue as people are resisting your ideas because they threaten their need to back some philosophical consensus.

[Prismatic567]

I believe I have answered the above.

Note conventionally and scientifically, I am not saying "there is no such system until it is discovered by one perceiving mind".
My take would be, it is possible [empirically] for such a system to exists.

So once empirically discovered, was it true that such a system preexisted its discovery?

Note I qualified the above statement with 'conventionally and scientifically'.
Yes, scientifically, such system pre-existed its discovery.
Albeit scientific theories are useful, according to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
Therefore we have to accept scientific theories with such qualifications and doubts to its degree to represent 'reality'.

2) Some claim they believe it to be true that those laws developed at the beginning of the formation of the universe. If there were no scientific laws before humans appeared on earth, how did the universe form? What could have been the mechanism if scientific laws didn't exist? I read some time ago that we haven't yet discovered a lot of the universe because light hasn’t had time to reach us yet since its beginning. This seems to presuppose the preexistent truth of scientific laws doesn't it?

The universe was formed and is still forming based on the human-justified Theory of the Big Bang which is merely a speculative and is an untestable theory.

Actually, it appears to me the BB has been mathematically tested and moved from "speculative" to "probable". I find it revealing that you're retreating from the assuredness of your faith in science to "speculative" and "untestable". You're quite a dancer.

How was I SO assured of the above when I had qualified it within the restricted conventional and scientific Framework.
I quoted Popper re scientific theories as 'conjectures' many times elsewhere whenever Science is mentioned.
It is a fact, the BB is untestable and unrepeatable, thus cannot qualify as a full scientific law.

You cannot presume there are certain existing scientific laws before they are discovered by human scientists.

I don't presume this. We're informed of it by science. It is suggested by empirically tested means that these laws were necessarily in place from essentially the beginning of the BB to form the universe that we see now. This seems to be the doctrine currently employed.

Surely you are not looking up to scientists as gods, do you?
Repeat, scientific theories at best are merely polished conjectures, albeit VERY useful.

The empirically based scientific approach is limited.

On top of the scientific perspectives, we have the empirical-rational-philosophical perspective to reach more-refined-polished-conjectures - note not God driven absolute truths. This is where we add more of logic, rationality, wisdom, ethics to scientific theories and practices.

What is scientific is conditioned upon the existence of human producing those scientific laws.
Therefore if no humans, there are no scientific laws. Note Kant has argued strongly for this point.

I leave this last quote as a testament and standard to those who still maintain that materialism isn't a religion. Thanks for your participation, Prism.

Where did I ever indicate any pro for materialism which was trounced by Berkeley. I agree to with Berkerely's first stage but not his second stage where he had to bring in God. Upon Berkeley's counter to materialism, the opponents turned to Physicalism along with all Philosophical Realists.
Unknowingly you could be a materialistic-theist, i.e. accepting God's created materials.

I am with the philosophical anti-realists along with the Buddha, Kant, Heidegger and others.

[Prismatic567]

On the other hand, a value-endued reality has a lot of interesting (to me anyway) connections. The notion of truth as just a feature of propositions or beliefs rises to a much larger role as a value mechanism for all existence. From the starting point “How would Avicenna’s idea that truth is a component of reality (essence) work? How would that play out?”, the conclusion I came to is that there are a number of interesting logical scenarios just on the secular side of things, probably the most significant of which is that value can be mapped to cognition as the prime mover of human behaviour.

There are even more possibilities on the theological side. I can only imagine where the mechanism of value could go in the mind of an actual philosopher, but suspect no one dare buck the status quo.

As I had stated, the most reliable and useful knowledge we have at the present are those from Science, but then these are at best polished conjectures, note conjectures!

What is of higher reliability and credibility are knowledge from philosophy-proper which encompasses the empirical [Science, etc,] the logical, the rational and the philosophical dealing only with possibilities.

Theology is based on faith [without reason-rationality and proof], thus clings on dogmatically to impossibilities [i.e. God which is like a square-circle]. Theology is driven by an underlying subliminal desperate existential psychology to the extent SOME theists will even kill [murder, genocide] to defend their theism.

[Anomaly654]

I think we need a very clear definition of truth.

I offered a definition in 3rd post.

Since you quote that definition of truth - one amongst a few - I need to repeat that truth is not in reality, but is reality, by that definition.

Sorry, you're losing me. Definitional deficiencies maybe?

Everything that exists is a truthbearer: matter, minds, universals, properties, etc.

I don't know what this means. Some of this is empirical, some is not.

This is part of my confusion. On the one hand you tell me If there was a philoosphical orthodoxy, then there would be a consensus. I don't see this. But a couple comments earlier you make what I see as an orthodox distinction--empirical and non-empirical--in your post.

Some think attributes are empircal. Soem think things are. So you are not distinguishing your ideas from what philosophers might put forward as true.

Moral attributes are non-empirical. The attributes of substances are empirical. Prescriptive truth pertains to normative reality and is dynamic. Descriptive truth is inert and applies to matter. Mortimer Adler identified these in his Ten Philosophical Mistakes (1985):
"In Book VI of his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, clearly cognizant of what he himself
had said about the character of descriptive truth, declared that what he called
practical judgments (i.e., prescriptive or normative judgments with respect to action)
had truth of a different sort. Later philosophers, except for Aristotle's medieval
disciples, have shown no awareness whatsoever of this brief but crucially important
passage in his writings."

I think, but I am not sure, that you are conflating truths with things like universals or laws.

I'm pretty sure I am.

Like with the latter that there are rules for the behavior of stuff we experience and we don't experience those rules, we deduce them. But the truths would be the assertions of those laws, for example, not the patterns/rules out there in reality. I am not making a metaphysical assertion here and so disagreeing with you. I am making a language based criticism. I htink, but I am not sure, you are using the words poorly.

I hold the rules for the behavior of stuff derives from the value content in the stuff and our deduction of these behaviors is itself brought to bear by a union of value between our minds and that content. To clarify, I don't think value itself is the content or is the only factor in shaping realities, but is the dynamic within stuff that creates the principle of unity (in regard to t - t connections) or discord (t - f or f - t connections in the case of intellects) in both empirical and non-empirical stuff.

I don't know his [Avicenna's] work, but I just read a summary and he seems to view truth as a propositional something. Like a stone is not a truth. Though it is real.

I claim only to use Avicenna's statement in the Summa (Part One, Q. 16, A. 1, "Whether Truth Resides Only in the
Intellect?") "The truth of each thing is a property of the essence which is immutably attached to it." I only use this single idea as a starting point.

I think it's probably not useful to posit yourself as raining rebellious notions that will feel threatening to the status quo. I do not think it is useful to frame the issue as people are resisting your ideas because they threaten their need to back some philosophical consensus.

Thanks for the advice. I think your interpretation of what I meant is exaggerated though. I feel you're presenting good advice that I can learn from if I can grasp completely what you're saying.