The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:14 pm

Yes. Although many will foolishly argue that because a "mile" was not defined back then, there were no "feet" in a mile. It would be a silly argument, but we get a lot of that around here.
So definitions have some kind of reality that transcends time?
At the time (500000 years ago) there was nobody to think about these definitions. And even if somebody was alive, he had no knowledge of the definitions.

In the future, one would expect that the definitions will be lost and there will no longer be any knowledge of them.

The definitions have no relevance except to us, now.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:33 pm

phyllo wrote:
Yes. Although many will foolishly argue that because a "mile" was not defined back then, there were no "feet" in a mile. It would be a silly argument, but we get a lot of that around here.
So definitions have some kind of reality that transcends time?
At the time (500000 years ago) there was nobody to think about these definitions. And even if somebody was alive, he had no knowledge of the definitions.

In the future, one would expect that the definitions will be lost and there will no longer be any knowledge of them.

The definitions have no relevance except to us, now.

Yes, definitions in a language have nothing to do with time. The statement, "the universe existed a billion years ago" is a true statement even though there might have been no one to think so a billion years ago. The statement is made in the present .. ABOUT the past (or future). The definitions are a matter of when the statement is made, because the statement is the claim. It would be a different issue if one said that someone a billion years ago claimed that the universe existed. A "mile" is defined in the current language, so it doesn't matter what time frame is being discussed. A mile is still a mile.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 24, 2017 8:00 pm

Yes, definitions in a language have nothing to do with time. The statement, "the universe existed a billion years ago" is a true statement even though there might have been no one to think so a billion years ago. The statement is made in the present .. ABOUT the past (or future). The definitions are a matter of when the statement is made, because the statement is the claim. It would be a different issue if one said that someone a billion years ago claimed that the universe existed. A "mile" is defined in the current language, so it doesn't matter what time frame is being discussed. A mile is still a mile.
The statements are only true(or false) now.

Did you read his question?
500,000 years ago was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile--at that specific point in time?


That's asking if the definitions in some way existed back then. Note that he is not asking if the concepts of feet and miles as we have defined them are applicable when we speak of events in the past.

If you answer "yes", then the truth must be embedded in the objects.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:42 pm

phyllo wrote:The statements are only true(or false) now.

Restating the actual question, "Is this statement true, '500,000 years ago there were 5,280 feet in a mile?'" That is the same question as "500,000 years ago, was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile". The word "it" in that statement refers to the thought about a mile being 5,280 feet long 500,000 years ago. The thought or statement is true, because the length of a mile relative to a foot doesn't change with time. The definitions of the words are the ones of today because the question is being asked using today's definitions.

Else he would have to have asked, "Was a mile defined to be 5,280 feet 500,000 years ago?"

That would be a different question concerning the definition of a "mile". The actual question concerned relative lengths, not definitions. How else could anyone ever speak of anything concerning prehistoric times? You are saying that because there was no language in those days nothing can be said about those days.

It is a matter of proper semantics.

phyllo wrote:Did you read his question?
500,000 years ago was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile--at that specific point in time?


That's asking if the definitions in some way existed back then.

It certainly is not. I thought that you were better than that. It didn't ask anything at all about the definitions of the words, merely the relative lengths that the words referenced. It is asking of relative lengths.

phyllo wrote:Note that he is not asking if the concepts of feet and miles as we have defined them are applicable when we speak of events in the past.

I'm not sure what you meant by that, but the question was about relative lengths, not words.

phyllo wrote:If you answer "yes", then the truth must be embedded in the objects.

And my issue was that it isn't "truth" that is embedded, but the reality that is embedded. Truth is about the words. And words are not embedded in objects (usually). Reality (and Affectance) is embedded in all existent things.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby phyllo » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:50 pm

It certainly is not. I thought that you were better than that. It didn't ask anything at all about the definitions of the words, merely the relative lengths that the words referenced. It is asking of relative lengths.
Well, you can ask him but I'm pretty sure that's what he was asking since that's consistent with his OP.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:51 pm

phyllo wrote:
It certainly is not. I thought that you were better than that. It didn't ask anything at all about the definitions of the words, merely the relative lengths that the words referenced. It is asking of relative lengths.
Well, you can ask him but I'm pretty sure that's what he was asking since that's consistent with his OP.

You might be right as far as what he intended. But if so, he didn't word it properly.

And the idea of truth being within the scene itself is a common phrasing, just more poetic than accurate.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:11 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Gyahd, what sophomoric naivety. :doh:
I find such hit and run spikes reek of intellectual cowardice.
Give me your arguments.

I and everyone else have given you rebuttals, right, left, center and everywhere inbetween, and you still can't figure out how far off mark you really are.

Amazing! #-o

"everyone else" ?? - you are lying!
Note I have countered all the points your raised and they are off the mark.

Note if you have any strong point which still have some sense I will surely continue to keep responding to it until you give up or I accept the point.
Your regular one-liners imply you have ran out of arguments.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 2:57 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
The point here you have not proven in any way your thesis, i.e.
"truth is the power that created and holds the universe together"
if you have not provide any reasonable proofs [philosophically] there is nothing to falsify.
It is like there is nothing to falsify a pre-existing 'false' theory.

Well, at least you made a reasonably understandable response here.
It is basically logic and rationality.

First, are you sure you understood the op--or understand the concept of truth--well enough to make these claims? I'm a bit skeptical.
I believe I have understood your OP and countered that your OP should be actually 'the Truth of the "Spiritual Mechanics"." Your OP's focus is not about 'truth' per se.

'Truth' is a fundamental of Philosophy. I have done extensive and very deep research into this critical element [truth] of Philosophy.
Note this;
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/#ReaAntRea
You check yourself with the above SEP article whether you are up to date with the various issues re 'truth' [philosophy].

Discussions of truth are synthetic in nature. Truth seems to fit readily into a number of corners. Propositions about truth can apply to facts, actual--as in 2+2=4--or logical, as in behaviors, e.g., in psychology or religion. I believe I've provided a reasonable foundation for the idea that truth is or can be at minimum a necessary condition of existence of force or energy, with the distinct logical possibility that truth is or may just be, force and power.
Your claim that I've provided no reasonable proofs, therefore there's nothing to falsify may mean I've provided no proofs you are willing to consider reasonable in order to avoid trying to falsify a premise you have motivations to reject out of the gate.
Or, it may be you don't understand the ideas laid out in the op--in which case the op's being unfalsifiable is for you, authentic. This is entirely possible; the places I take truth are unorthodox and far out of the status quo, though not new.

Another possibility is that I'm deluded and what I considered logical proofs in the op are really just wishful thinking. In this case you are almost certainly correct that I've just mounted a "pre-existing 'false' theory. But if the latter, maybe you could at least coherently point out the logical fallacies by which you're able to deem the op a "pre-existing 'false' theory"?

I suggest you refer to the SEP I linked re 'Truth' and from other philosophical sources on the term 'truth'.
As I had stated your OP is not focussing on Truth per-se. What you have presented is a false theory about truth [philosophy]. I had explained earlier but you don't seem to get, thus I did not bother thereafter.

If your end game is trying to justify God exists, I have indicated with evidence the reification of an illusory and impossible God is most likely due to psychological forces deep within one's psyche.

I'm not trying to justify God's existence in the op. As a theist this metaphysic grew together with and supports a certain theological position, but I've tried to keep the religious aspects to a minimum. Realizing they will 'bleed through' anyway, I posted this in the Religion and Spirituality section of the board.
I had stated in my first post, your mentioned of 'Avicenna' is an obvious clue you are going in the direct of 'truth' in relation to 'God'. Btw, God is not about truth-in-general but rather faith.

And as I noted above, I think I demonstrated in another thread that your placing God in the realm of impossibilities is fatally flawed. The fact that you continue to parrot the same falsified claim virtually everywhere I've seen you post here suggests the principles laid out in the op may go some distance in providing an explanation for your underlying motives for posting here.
[/quote]If you can produce any sound arguments against my 'God is an Impossibility' I will give you a million thanks because you would have contributed to raise my knowledge one big quantum-leap notch.
I have not come across any poster here who has cracked my argument 'God is an Impossibility.'
If your counter is very convincing it would be very striking to catch my attention and I will be obliged to keep it in mind to prove it wrong or accept it.

'underlying motives'
I have been very transparent with why I argued and raised the OP 'God is an Impossibility' i.e.
the reason is theism-as-a-whole is loaded with very evil laden elements that inspire some evil prone theists [from especially THAT religion of peace] to commit terrible evils and violence around the world with the potential to exterminate the human species. (nb: Trump and Kim could do that but that is a different topic i.e. politics)
Because the above is so glaring and evident, humanity must critique theism.
Image
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:22 am

James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Yes. Although many will foolishly argue that because a "mile" was not defined back then, there were no "feet" in a mile. It would be a silly argument, but we get a lot of that around here.
So definitions have some kind of reality that transcends time?
At the time (500000 years ago) there was nobody to think about these definitions. And even if somebody was alive, he had no knowledge of the definitions.

In the future, one would expect that the definitions will be lost and there will no longer be any knowledge of them.

The definitions have no relevance except to us, now.

Yes, definitions in a language have nothing to do with time. The statement, "the universe existed a billion years ago" is a true statement even though there might have been no one to think so a billion years ago. The statement is made in the present .. ABOUT the past (or future). The definitions are a matter of when the statement is made, because the statement is the claim. It would be a different issue if one said that someone a billion years ago claimed that the universe existed. A "mile" is defined in the current language, so it doesn't matter what time frame is being discussed. A mile is still a mile.
James, your points are very philosophically-childish.

I have highlighted Wittgenstein's 'Language Games' and the weakness of language which must be overridden by philosophical deliberations and critical thinking

Note a 'mile' is based on 'feet.'
The original measurement of a 'foot' was actually grounded the 'foot' of someone or an average reading of a few feet.

Historically the human body has been used to provide the basis for units of length.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)#Historical_origin


The current popular measurements based on the metric system was once based on a standard bar of metal kept in a safe.

wiki wrote:The metre was originally defined in 1793 as one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole.
In 1799, it was redefined in terms of a prototype metre bar (the actual bar used was changed in 1889).
In 1960, the metre was redefined in terms of a certain number of wavelengths of a certain emission line of krypton-86.
In 1983, the current definition was adopted.


So as you can see all measurements of distance are fundamentally dependent on human consensus.

Note the general rule, there is no thing-in-itself [Kant], i.e. no absolute things.

So there is no such thing as a 'mile-in-itself' but rather there is only a mile-by-humanselves.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 3:43 am

James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:If you answer "yes", then the truth must be embedded in the objects.

And my issue was that it isn't "truth" that is embedded, but the reality that is embedded. Truth is about the words. And words are not embedded in objects (usually). Reality (and Affectance) is embedded in all existent things.
What kind of nonsense is that?

Where is the 'reality' that is embedded in a stone [object]?

The point is this;
-truth = facts = real = reality.

What is real must be verifiable and justifiable [rationally].
Truth per se is a statement of facts which must be verified and justified rationally/philosophically.

'That apple on the table is green' is true when such a statement of fact is verified and justified rationally with empirical evidences and proofs.
Why we need philosophical rational justifications is because on further philosophical deliberation 'perhaps there is no apple at all' note Russell,

Russell wrote: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.

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


Even with a sound basis of "truth = fact = real = reality" one should be humbled enough [because truth is human-made] there is no absolute certainty of what we declare as the highest 'truth' which from another perspective could be at best 'polished conjecture' [Popper].
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Mon Dec 25, 2017 6:55 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Where is the 'reality' that is embedded in a stone [object]?

Wherever the stone is, is where the reality of the stone is (assuming that it is a "real stone"). It is a tautological issue. If the stone is real, then OBVIOUSLY the reality is in the presence of the stone. #-o

Prismatic567 wrote:The point is this;
-truth = facts = real = reality.

Wrong again.

real => leads to => Reality => leads to => facts => leads to => Truth

Truth is a mental construct derived by observation and deduction of what appears to be real, appears to be Reality.

Prismatic567 wrote:What is real must be verifiable and justifiable [rationally].

No. What is real is merely what is real. It needs no justification at all. It is what YOU BELIEVE TO BE REAL that "must be verified and/or justified". It is the belief that must be justified by comparing it with what is found to be real.

Prismatic567 wrote:Truth per se is a statement of facts which must be verified and justified rationally/philosophically.

There you go.

Truth is the thoughts or statements, not the reality itself. The thoughts must be verified to ensure that they "align with reality", are "true to Reality", properly form a "map of Reality".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:01 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Where is the 'reality' that is embedded in a stone [object]?

Wherever the stone is, is where the reality of the stone is (assuming that it is a "real stone"). It is a tautological issue. If the stone is real, then OBVIOUSLY the reality is in the presence of the stone. #-o
You are using tautology.

In rhetoric, a tautology (from Greek ταὐτός, "the same" and λόγος, "word/idea") is an argument which repeats an assertion using different phrasing. The proposition, as stated, is thus logically irrefutable, while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion.


If the stone is real, then OBVIOUSLY the reality is in the presence of the stone.
You are using IF, i.e. if the stone is real.
But what is meant by 'real' stone?

Note Russell again?

Russell wrote: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.

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


According to Russell, perhaps there is no real stone at all.

I wonder whether you understand the principle underlying the question, perhaps there is no real table or stone.

Don't jump yet!
The stone is real, if you throw a stone at me I will avoid it.
But the stone is not absolutely real in the sense you are claiming it to be real.

What is a real stone is always interdependent with the subject[s] who realize and actualize the stone.

Prismatic567 wrote:The point is this;
-truth = facts = real = reality.

Wrong again.

real => leads to => Reality => leads to => facts => leads to => Truth

Truth is a mental construct derived by observation and deduction of what appears to be real, appears to be Reality.
Wrong again.
How can you start with the 'real' when you have not known what it is?


Prismatic567 wrote:What is real must be verifiable and justifiable [rationally].

No. What is real is merely what is real. It needs no justification at all. It is what YOU BELIEVE TO BE REAL that "must be verified and/or justified". It is the belief that must be justified by comparing it with what is found to be real.
Tautology again.
This is where theism comes in with 'god is real is therefore real'.

Prismatic567 wrote:Truth per se is a statement of facts which must be verified and justified rationally/philosophically.

There you go.

Truth is the thoughts or statements, not the reality itself. The thoughts must be verified to ensure that they "align with reality", are "true to Reality", properly form a "map of Reality".
How can you align with 'reality' before you know 'what is reality'.
This is Meno's paradox.

There various phases to understand what is reality?
'What you called 'align' with 'reality' is actually the testing and reproduction process for example in Science.

First Science established what is reality in accordance its Scientific Framework and System based on an intersubjective consensus basis. This is the Scientific Reality as actualized and realized.
Say the Scientific Reality that is established is, when one burns hydrogen, the result is water.
The alignment with Scientific Reality is thus testing and reproducing this theory to verify and justify such a Scientific truth and reality.

I anticipate most people will think, but there were 'hydrogen' burned by 'oxygen' before humans existed.
But the point is 'hydrogen' oxygen are Scientific based terms which are based on intersubjective consensus are human-based concepts and before is time based, i.e. human intuition [Kantian].
Therefore what is realized as reality, i.e. Scientific, common-sense, etc. are interdependent with human subjects. There is no reality-in-itself [Kantian] that appears to be real. ???
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby phyllo » Mon Dec 25, 2017 4:46 pm

What is a real stone is always interdependent with the subject[s] who realize and actualize the stone.
#-o
But the point is 'hydrogen' oxygen are Scientific based terms which are based on intersubjective consensus are human-based concepts and before is time based, i.e. human intuition [Kantian].
This is the idea that "reality" is whatever you put a name on. If you don't put a name on, then it's not "reality".

A Realist would say that "reality" is outside of the mind and it doen't matter if you have named it or not. It doesn't matter if you have identified it rightly or wrongly or identified it at all. If a stone falls on your head and kills you, then you are still dead whether you saw it or not. If people find your body years later and can't identify the cause of your death ... you're still dead. If your body is never found ... you're still dead. The "real stone", "the absolutely real stone" acts in spite of what you think.

Now along come the "anti-philosophers" and they think that thinking is the 'be all and end all' of "reality". :lol:
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Tue Dec 26, 2017 7:14 am

Prismatic567 wrote:How can you align with 'reality' before you know 'what is reality'.

Gyahd. Have you no comprehension of the language at all? [-(
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:28 am

phyllo wrote:
What is a real stone is always interdependent with the subject[s] who realize and actualize the stone.
#-o
But the point is 'hydrogen' oxygen are Scientific based terms which are based on intersubjective consensus are human-based concepts and before is time based, i.e. human intuition [Kantian].
This is the idea that "reality" is whatever you put a name on. If you don't put a name on, then it's not "reality".

A Realist would say that "reality" is outside of the mind and it doen't matter if you have named it or not. It doesn't matter if you have identified it rightly or wrongly or identified it at all. If a stone falls on your head and kills you, then you are still dead whether you saw it or not. If people find your body years later and can't identify the cause of your death ... you're still dead. If your body is never found ... you're still dead. The "real stone", "the absolutely real stone" acts in spite of what you think.

Now along come the "anti-philosophers" and they think that thinking is the 'be all and end all' of "reality". :lol:
It is not the name that counts in the consideration of Reality. What counts in its verifiability and justifications.

If both of us are standing on railway track and see a train coming in our way, I will jump off the track and I presume you will do the same. Both of us are realist.

The difference between you and me is how we philosophize 'what is reality' and the type of 'realist' view you hold.

Btw, I stated elsewhere there are two types of 'realists.' i.e.
    1. Empirical realist
    2. Transcendental realist

I am a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist that engages, entangles and interacts with empirical reality via an emergent reality.

OTOH, in your case, you are a transcendental realist, i.e. your Reality is an independent external reality beyond your self and reach which you can never really get in touch to actualize it.

It is this transcendental view that compel and seduce you into believing a God that exists externally and independent of yourself. While such a belief is useful psychologically it bring forth terrible evils and violence by SOME evil prone theists.

The "real stone", "the absolutely real stone" acts in spite of what you think.

Note Russell again "Perhaps there is no table at all." So perhaps there is no "stone" at all and I am 'certain' there is no absolutely real stone, except a 'stone' that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.

I believe you are not able to get a philosophical handle on this point at all. I suggest you suspend your current belief for a while and reflect deeply on Russell's point 'There may not be a table at all.'

A stone in a more realistic perspective is a denser bundle of molecules amidst other looser molecules of earth, etc.
Within common sense a real stone is what is defined and cognized as a stone.
A blind-bat will not see a stone like human or other non-sonar animals see it.
If one view the stone using an electron microscope, then it is just a bundle/cluster of atoms.
There are so many perspectives that one described that stone as real.
So what is the real absolute stone?

I am 'certain' there is no absolutely real stone, except a 'stone' that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby phyllo » Tue Dec 26, 2017 3:43 pm

If both of us are standing on railway track and see a train coming in our way, I will jump off the track and I presume you will do the same.
I don't doubt that. And it makes me think that your philosophy is just a lot of mental gymnastics and talk. When it comes to actually living, things get real. Not surprising ... how could it be otherwise?
The difference between you and me is how we philosophize 'what is reality' and the type of 'realist' view you hold.

Btw, I stated elsewhere there are two types of 'realists.' i.e.

1. Empirical realist
2. Transcendental realist


I am a realist, i.e. an Empirical Realist that engages, entangles and interacts with empirical reality via an emergent reality.

OTOH, in your case, you are a transcendental realist, i.e. your Reality is an independent external reality beyond your self and reach which you can never really get in touch to actualize it.

That kind of process of sticking ideas, people and things into labelled boxes doesn't really interest me. I'm only interested in practical philosophy ... philosophy which is useful, helps me, improves my life.
It is this transcendental view that compel and seduce you into believing a God that exists externally and independent of yourself. While such a belief is useful psychologically it bring forth terrible evils and violence by SOME evil prone theists.
I believe that there is a real God because it explains some features of the universe which would otherwise be unexplainable. It's possible that I am wrong but I think that the probability is in my favor. I really don't lose anything by having this belief.
Note Russell again "Perhaps there is no table at all." So perhaps there is no "stone" at all and I am 'certain' there is no absolutely real stone, except a 'stone' that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.

I believe you are not able to get a philosophical handle on this point at all. I suggest you suspend your current belief for a while and reflect deeply on Russell's point 'There may not be a table at all.'
Perhaps there is no Russell or framework or system or "conditioning".
A stone in a more realistic perspective is a denser bundle of molecules amidst other looser molecules of earth, etc.
Within common sense a real stone is what is defined and cognized as a stone.
A blind-bat will not see a stone like human or other non-sonar animals see it.
If one view the stone using an electron microscope, then it is just a bundle/cluster of atoms.
There are so many perspectives that one described that stone as real.
So what is the real absolute stone?

I am 'certain' there is no absolutely real stone, except a 'stone' that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.
Different levels of abstractions ... you call them different realities.

What is IT that you are abstracting? You refuse to call IT reality.

That seems to sum it up.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:04 am

phyllo wrote:
If both of us are standing on railway track and see a train coming in our way, I will jump off the track and I presume you will do the same.
I don't doubt that. And it makes me think that your philosophy is just a lot of mental gymnastics and talk. When it comes to actually living, things get real. Not surprising ... how could it be otherwise?

That kind of process of sticking ideas, people and things into labelled boxes doesn't really interest me. I'm only interested in practical philosophy ... philosophy which is useful, helps me, improves my life.

I believe that there is a real God because it explains some features of the universe which would otherwise be unexplainable. It's possible that I am wrong but I think that the probability is in my favor. I really don't lose anything by having this belief.
I agree there is a lot of mental gymnastics and very complex ones but these are necessary for humanity's sake.

The drive to believe in a God is psychological, critically necessary and primarily has significant psychological benefits to the individual [s] as a balm to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential crisis -the angst.
Basically theism as a psychological balm is a very SELFISH thing but there are no effective alternatives for the majority in their present psychological state.

However looking at the big picture in relation to humanity, whilst theism serves primarily* a selfish needs it has its double-edged with its inevitable unavoidable manifestation of terrible evils and violence by SOME [potential pool of billion+] evil prone theists.

The problem with the individual theists is they are driven naturally by SELFISH drives and that blinded them to see themselves as a whole group of theists with its malignant evils that is a threat to humanity -possible extermination of the species by SOME theists.

The theory is thus, no theism = no theistic related evils and violence, but this is not practical until there are effective fool proofs alternative replacements to deal with that inherent existential angst.

So at least at present I am discussing the theory only with the optimism it will be practical in the future.


Note Russell again "Perhaps there is no table at all." So perhaps there is no "stone" at all and I am 'certain' there is no absolutely real stone, except a 'stone' that is conditioned to a respective Framework and System.

I believe you are not able to get a philosophical handle on this point at all. I suggest you suspend your current belief for a while and reflect deeply on Russell's point 'There may not be a table at all.'
Perhaps there is no Russell or framework or system or "conditioning".
Framework and System is imperative. But is possible for no framework [X] Russell or even 'you' but only within the relevant Framework and System [Y].

Different levels of abstractions ... you call them different realities.

What is IT that you are abstracting? You refuse to call IT reality.

That seems to sum it up.
'Abstraction' is a very limited description.
Take the Scientific Framework and its reality, there is abstraction in Science but the whole process to enabling scientific theories and knowledge very complex.

I understand one can think of ONE REALITY, but that is only in thought and such a 'reality' is an impossibility within an empirical-rational basis. There is a psychological basis to think of such an absolute reality just as one can only think of God which is an impossibility.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1910
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Snark » Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:44 am

There are more things in heaven and earth, Prismatic, than are dreamt of in your simple-minded philosophy.
Snark
 
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2017 8:20 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Mowk » Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:51 am

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzforrealzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzohah?
my goal in life is to die and no one notices.
in other words; to live as audaciously as possible while drawing the least attention. or at best, something vaguely similar.
Mowk
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1063
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 8:17 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:04 pm

James S Saint wrote:
phyllo wrote:
Yes. Although many will foolishly argue that because a "mile" was not defined back then, there were no "feet" in a mile. It would be a silly argument, but we get a lot of that around here.
So definitions have some kind of reality that transcends time?
At the time (500000 years ago) there was nobody to think about these definitions. And even if somebody was alive, he had no knowledge of the definitions.

In the future, one would expect that the definitions will be lost and there will no longer be any knowledge of them.

The definitions have no relevance except to us, now.

Yes, definitions in a language have nothing to do with time. The statement, "the universe existed a billion years ago" is a true statement even though there might have been no one to think so a billion years ago. The statement is made in the present .. ABOUT the past (or future). The definitions are a matter of when the statement is made, because the statement is the claim. It would be a different issue if one said that someone a billion years ago claimed that the universe existed. A "mile" is defined in the current language, so it doesn't matter what time frame is being discussed. A mile is still a mile.

To be more clear, the question had to do with whether the TRUTH existed about the mile 500,000 years ago, irrespective to time frame of the statement. Reference to time frame of the observation is irrelevant.

A consistent realist would properly confirm that the measurement 5,280 feet = 1 mile held 500,000 years ago as it does today. But mathematics is useless minus its reference to truth for at least the reason noted in the op, that mathematics is the beautiful language of perfect, immutable truth. Mathematics has no meaning without reference to truth; this is the only thing mathematics is about. If one affirms that mathematics existed 500,000 years ago, one is tacitly admitting that truth did too. If truth existed 500,000 years ago, then truth can't be mind independent unless some other mind than a human mind existed then. So truth either is not mind independent or it is dependent on some mind other than a human mind.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 27, 2017 6:50 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:To be more clear, the question had to do with whether the TRUTH existed about the mile 500,000 years ago, irrespective to time frame of the statement. Reference to time frame of the observation is irrelevant.

Truth cannot exist until language exists. Truth is what describes Reality. If there is no one to describe Reality, there is no Truth.

Anomaly654 wrote:A consistent realist would properly confirm that the measurement 5,280 feet = 1 mile held 500,000 years ago as it does today.

That is true, although has nothing to do with mathematics, rather definition.

Anomaly654 wrote: But mathematics is useless minus its reference to truth for at least the reason noted in the op, that mathematics is the beautiful language of perfect, immutable truth. Mathematics has no meaning without reference to truth; this is the only thing mathematics is about.

Mathematics is logic applied to quantities. Without mind, there is no logic. Without logic, there is no mathematics.

Anomaly654 wrote: If one affirms that mathematics existed 500,000 years ago, one is tacitly admitting that truth did too.

Neither existed 500,000 years ago.

Anomaly654 wrote: If truth existed 500,000 years ago, then truth can't be mind independent unless some other mind than a human mind existed then. So truth either is not mind independent or it is dependent on some mind other than a human mind.

Did you mean to say "mind dependent"? Otherwise, your sentence doesn't seem to make sense.
But actually Truth certainly is mind-DEpendant, because Truth is language dependent.


I'm not seeing the point.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:13 pm

If truth be language dependent then it is also mind dependent because language is a product of the mind
A distinction should be made between truth which does not have to be known and knowledge which does
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:19 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:If truth be language dependent then it is also mind dependent because language is a product of the mind
A distinction should be made between truth which does not have to be known and knowledge which does

Truth is formed of the language by the mind, so yes, it is mind dependent. But also Truth must be known in order to have been formed by a mind (forgiving the infinite monkey theorem).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 7:31 pm

I believe I have understood your OP and countered that your OP should be actually 'the Truth of the "Spiritual Mechanics"." Your OP's focus is not about 'truth' per se.

But comments like this show the superficiality of your thinking my friend. For example, your next comment….

'Truth' is a fundamental of Philosophy. I have done extensive and very deep research into this critical element [truth] of Philosophy.

…pretty much trips you up. First, it’s odd that someone who has done deep and extensive research into truth consistently posts links to SEP and Wikipedia. These are fine sources for the amateur like me, but are introductory explanations. Second, you infer the surprisingly thin (for someone of your reported depth of understanding) proposal that unless the view of truth I present is consistent in most or all of its significant points with those in SEP it is not actually about truth at all. This is just an attempt to use standing notions of truth as rules you wish to force on one, as though thinking outside the box somehow leads only to error--as evidenced in the following:

I suggest you refer to the SEP I linked re 'Truth' and from other philosophical sources on the term 'truth'. As I had stated your OP is not focussing on Truth per-se. What you have presented is a false theory about truth [philosophy]. I had explained earlier but you don't seem to get, thus I did not bother thereafter.

I gently suggest that your reasoning needs considerable further thought to shore up its ramshackle foundations.

…your mentioned of 'Avicenna' is an obvious clue you are going in the direct of 'truth' in relation to 'God'.

Actually, it is not. I draw content from the concepts and ideas of those I find meaningful. You appear to discount Avicenna on the sole basis that he was Muslim [a theist], therefore his metaphysics can’t be true. But this presupposes the unproven proposition that God does not exist. Posting things like this might be why others respond to you the way they do. Food for thought.

If you can produce any sound arguments against my 'God is an Impossibility' I will give you a million thanks because you would have contributed to raise my knowledge one big quantum-leap notch.

I have not come across any poster here who has cracked my argument 'God is an Impossibility.'

If your counter is very convincing it would be very striking to catch my attention and I will be obliged to keep it in mind to prove it wrong or accept it.

1. Impossible things have no information. Minds can only grasp information; thus any information the mind is able to grasp has passed the first and fundamental test for its possession of existence of some sort.

2. The evidence of this is to carefully consider the impossibility of a square triangle. The mind can only grasp square and triangle because each of these singly possess information. But beyond this, the mind slams shut when “square triangle” is presented because “square triangle” is an impossibility. Impossibilities possess no information.

3. The signifier “God” is one of the most—arguably the most—objectively discussed concepts in history. The sheer weight of this evidence flatly denies legitimacy to placing “God” in the realm of impossibilities, as you have so often recklessly done. What remains is to determine what sort of existence the information “God” might be, but that’s a separate discussion, not relevant to the question of God being an impossibility.

Think the above over carefully , Prismatic…when finished you can give me a million thanks.

One of the interesting things to me about the power of prescriptive truth as presented in the op lies in its predictive abilities. For example, using the principles laid out there, one can, with some degree of accuracy, predict how people whose minds are made up and shut to superior evidence will respond to prescriptive truths they don’t want to hear. I run into this in discussions with fellow Christians all the time. And there have been many times in my own past I have toed the line and stubbornly defended “truths” I thought were fundamental, only to have them rather painfully eroded over time and replaced by higher truths I fought to keep out of my worldview. The analytical methods that can be drawn from the op might even suitably anticipate forthcoming responses in this thread.

It’s also interesting to me that the principles noted in the op are tied closely to views and practices in various fields of psychology. For example, psychoanalysis is typically aimed at bringing patients to recognize and deal with (prescriptive) truths they don’t want to embrace. In the spiritual mechanics of truth, this has a very strong theoretical correspondence to the gradual restoration of some degree of falsity in the value content of the individual to a true state, suggesting at least some degree of capacity for human means of prescriptive value renovation—something traditionally thought in theological circles to be wholly beyond our abilities.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:08 pm

James wrote:
Truth must be known in order to have been formed by a mind

Does truth have to be formed by a mind? Can not something be true without it being formed by a mind? Truth pertains to
what is true so it is not necessary for it to be known. For it to be known would mean that it was knowledge not just truth
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
Thinker
 
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users