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 James S Saint » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:10 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
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

Nothing but language and/or thoughts can be "true" (to reality). What else is there to be true to reality (aka "aligned with 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 surreptitious75 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:24 pm

Language and thoughts are not the only things that are true about reality. They are how truth is expressed. But reality by
virtue of its existence is already true. Language and thoughts just convey that truth. That is when it becomes knowledge
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Wed Dec 27, 2017 9:49 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Language and thoughts are not the only things that are true about reality. They are how truth is expressed. But reality by virtue of its existence is already true. Language and thoughts just convey that truth. That is when it becomes knowledge

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

To say that "reality is true" is to say that "reality aligns with reality" .. a bit tautologically pointless to express.

Statements and thoughts can be "true to reality", "aligned with reality". The word "true" does not apply to reality itself because it would be pointless. Reality is what affects you. Truth might or might not affect you, depending on communications. You might never hear Truth, but you can never escape Reality (Prism's mind excluded).

Truth is the description, the map, not the terrain.
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 10:18 pm

The word real applies to reality and what is real is true so logically reality must be true
Something does not have to be expressed in language or in thought just for it to be real
Reality is simply ALL THERE IS and it existed before either thought or language ever did
When the human race becomes extinct and there is no more thought or language reality will still exist like it always has
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:40 pm

To say that "reality is true" is to say that "reality aligns with reality" .. a bit tautologically pointless to express.

I disagree. To say [state] that reality is true is just to acknowledge reality has existence from one's perspective. Existence is made up of nothing but values. Properties and attributes are just value statements.

Value [true and/or false] is a condition of existence. That's why we express descriptive reality in value statements--and math is the primary language of descriptive reality while moral statements are the primary language of prescriptive reality. A common expression today is, "It is what it is." We can't describe "it" without describing its value(s). If "is" is just about a certain set of circumstances that exist, those circumstances will contain various factual values [John, is 5'-11" tall, weighs 187.834 pounds, is composed of specific numbers and kinds of cells, molecules, atoms, etc.] and prescriptive values [won't work with Dan because he hates him for having cheated him out of $40, etc.]. All our language either directly or indirectly accesses the myriad values that comprise a given state of affairs. It is what it is (that John didn't show up today because he knew Dan would be here, so you and Dan will have to get the job done yourselves) just [partially] describes one set of reality circumstances.

Reality is value, and most of that value is truth.
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 11:08 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:
To say that "reality is true" is to say that "reality aligns with reality" .. a bit tautologically pointless to express.

I disagree. To say [state] that reality is true is just to acknowledge reality has existence from one's perspective.

By definition Reality IS existence.
re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/
noun
1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"
synonyms: the real world, real life, actuality; More
2. the state or quality of having existence or substance.


Anomaly654 wrote:Existence is made up of nothing but values. Properties and attributes are just value statements.

You are going to have a hard time getting that one passed me.

Anomaly654 wrote:Value [true and/or false] is a condition of existence.

Certainly not. Value cannot exist until there is someone to assign value.
val·ue
ˈvalyo͞o/
noun
1. the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
"your support is of great value"
synonyms: worth, usefulness, advantage, benefit, gain, profit, good, help, merit, helpfulness, avail; More
2. a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.
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 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 4:33 am

James, I'm disappointed that you posted a dictionary definition of value as an argument against the framework laid out in the op . You of all people I've read here--given the abstract nature and sophistication of RM--surprise me by directing to the status quo. You're merely pointing out that minds evaluate. This offers no argument for why or what we evaluate. Correspondence is a relation, not a definition of truth. I understand you and most folks don't accept the notion of value as a condition of existence...it's outside the mainstream. But the mainstream has no ownership of truth.

I wonder, do folks reject the notion of a value-endued reality because the arguments are incoherent or do they reject because it fails to fit their own worldviews?
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:18 am

Anomaly654 wrote:James, I'm disappointed that you posted a dictionary definition of value as an argument against the framework laid out in the op . You of all people I've read here--given the abstract nature and sophistication of RM--surprise me by directing to the status quo.

When the status-quo is about a precise definition (if properly stated) then it is a matter of the language we are using. It is not about any belief concerning any proposed "truth", merely the proper use of the words involved. If you are trying to make a point concerning innate, absolute values of objects, use the right words to express it. That is all I am saying.

Anomaly654 wrote:You're merely pointing out that minds evaluate. This offers no argument for why or what we evaluate.

Not really. I was expressing that the ONLY source and formation of "value" is from minds. There is no other kind. And that is to say that a rock, for example, has no value whatsoever unless a mind assigns a value to it. The rock did not have value until a mind chose that it be so. It doesn't matter WHY a mind might do that. That is a different issue (involving PHT if you recall).

Anomaly654 wrote:I understand you and most folks don't accept the notion of value as a condition of existence...it's outside the mainstream. But the mainstream has no ownership of truth.

I am not talking about mainstream one way or another. I am talking about what the words mean. And the word "value" refers to something assigned by people to other things (as pointed out in the dictionary). If you are referring to something else, use a word or phrase that means what you mean to say.

Anomaly654 wrote:I wonder, do folks reject the notion of a value-endued reality because the arguments are incoherent or do they reject because it fails to fit their own worldviews?

If you mean what I think that you mean, the reason people in general reject it is because most people can quickly see that nothing has value until it is assigned value. What has value to some, has little or no value to others, more often, merely different value. There are many who believe otherwise concerning only specific things, for example "life" in the Christian Church is accepted as innate and inherent value regardless of anyone's assessment. That is professed for ecumenical reasons, but is not philosophically sound.
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 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:37 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
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.
You miss my critical point.
"Wiki and SEP" are a convenience and good beginnings. It is not practical to produce a Bibliography for every point I made. Btw, SEP is 10 times more rigor and credible than Wiki.

What is most critical is this point which you have missed, "from other philosophical sources on the term 'truth'."
Since you are in a philosophical forum, the ultimate is for you [me and others] to do a literature review and exhaust as much as possible the topic of 'what is truth'. I have made a point to strive to achieve this.

…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.
As I had stated as far as Science is concern, there is no issue with Avicenna as he had to comply with the requirements of the Scientific Framework. But when it comes to Metaphysics and philosophy, a theist will be default bring in God.
Note I have presented my thesis 'God is an Impossibility'. I invite critiques to that proposal.

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.][/quote]Impossibilities [in various contexts] can be thought.
It is quite reasonable God could possibility exists via reason, i.e. primal crude reason in mind.
But as highlighted in the details [in that OP] I have highlighted God is an Impossibility within the empirical-rational reality.

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.
Btw, re you point 3, have you considered the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

wiki wrote:In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.


If you insist God exists within the empirical-rational reality, e.g. a God who can hear and answers prayers and the likes, then you have to provide the necessary evidences to justify your claim.

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.
Note there are tons of psychological research out there in explaining why and how,
You: how people whose minds are made up and shut to superior evidence will respond to prescriptive truths they don’t want to hear.
These findings are applicable to secular and theistic behaviors.

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.
Know Thyself.
Since you mentioned 'psychology' I would suggest you look into the psychological basis of why the majority of people are clinging to theism where SOME will even kill, murder, commit genocides when they perceive their theism is threatened.
'Psychoanalysis' will be one of the useful tools to understand the above.

Note, I have mentioned somewhere,
there are tons of research relating to how the idea of God manifest in the minds of SOME people, e.g. the mentally sick, the brain damage, those taking drugs, chemicals, hallucinogen, various diseases, electronic brain stimulation etc.
(I have provided links to the above in some other posts)
These actual evidences and findings provide strong clues that the idea of God is a resultant of brain activity than a God existing as real within empirical-rational reality.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Meno_ » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:43 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Anomaly654 wrote:
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.
You miss my critical point.
"Wiki and SEP" are a convenience and good beginnings. It is not practical to produce a Bibliography for every point I made. Btw, SEP is 10 times more rigor and credible than Wiki.

What is most critical is this point which you have missed, "from other philosophical sources on the term 'truth'."
Since you are in a philosophical forum, the ultimate is for you [me and others] to do a literature review and exhaust as much as possible the topic of 'what is truth'. I have made a point to strive to achieve this.

…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.
As I had stated as far as Science is concern, there is no issue with Avicenna as he had to comply with the requirements of the Scientific Framework. But when it comes to Metaphysics and philosophy, a theist will be default bring in God.
Note I have presented my thesis 'God is an Impossibility'. I invite critiques to that proposal.

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.]
Impossibilities [in various contexts] can be thought.
It is quite reasonable God could possibility exists via reason, i.e. primal crude reason in mind.
But as highlighted in the details [in that OP] I have highlighted God is an Impossibility within the empirical-rational reality.

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.
Btw, re you point 3, have you considered the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

wiki wrote:In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.


If you insist God exists within the empirical-rational reality, e.g. a God who can hear and answers prayers and the likes, then you have to provide the necessary evidences to justify your claim.

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.
Note there are tons of psychological research out there in explaining why and how,
You: how people whose minds are made up and shut to superior evidence will respond to prescriptive truths they don’t want to hear.
These findings are applicable to secular and theistic behaviors.

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.
Know Thyself.
Since you mentioned 'psychology' I would suggest you look into the psychological basis of why the majority of people are clinging to theism where SOME will even kill, murder, commit genocides when they perceive their theism is threatened.
'Psychoanalysis' will be one of the useful tools to understand the above.

Note, I have mentioned somewhere,
there are tons of research relating to how the idea of God manifest in the minds of SOME people, e.g. the mentally sick, the brain damage, those taking drugs, chemicals, hallucinogen, various diseases, electronic brain stimulation etc.
(I have provided links to the above in some other posts)
These actual evidences and findings provide strong clues that the idea of God is a resultant of brain activity than a God existing as real within empirical-rational reality.[/quote]


Prismatic: Perhaps we should adjust to the normalcy of the empirically rational world, where scepticism abounds even to the very minimal definition of normalcy.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:04 am

Meno wrote:Prismatic: Perhaps we should adjust to the normalcy of the empirically rational world, where scepticism abounds even to the very minimal definition of normalcy.
Any one can be a skeptic to any philosophical idea any time. No problem with that.

What is critical is, whenever any one makes a positive claim one has to provide verifiable and rational justifications.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Meno_ » Thu Dec 28, 2017 6:17 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Meno wrote:Prismatic: Perhaps we should adjust to the normalcy of the empirically rational world, where scepticism abounds even to the very minimal definition of normalcy.
Any one can be a skeptic to any philosophical idea any time. No problem with that.

What is critical is, whenever any one makes a positive claim one has to provide verifiable and rational justifications.




Verifiable and rational deepens the mystery of the business of that logical processing; what becomes rational and how to demonstrate.

In near pure intuition came forth almost impossibly verifiable truths.

Some so unlikely to prove such as Newton's apparent discovery of a falling apple. It was one mans discovery, yet how many has seen this happen?
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:35 am

Meno_ wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Meno wrote:Prismatic: Perhaps we should adjust to the normalcy of the empirically rational world, where scepticism abounds even to the very minimal definition of normalcy.
Any one can be a skeptic to any philosophical idea any time. No problem with that.

What is critical is, whenever any one makes a positive claim one has to provide verifiable and rational justifications.


Verifiable and rational deepens the mystery of the business of that logical processing; what becomes rational and how to demonstrate.

In near pure intuition came forth almost impossibly verifiable truths.

Some so unlikely to prove such as Newton's apparent discovery of a falling apple. It was one mans discovery, yet how many has seen this happen?
Newton did not discover the common sense knowledge of falling apples. That falling apple was merely a trigger to more sophisticated knowledge which ultimately need evidence to verify and justify a conclusion.

Einstein did say 'Imagination is more important than Knowledge' as a triggering point but eventually to be credible all knowledge has to be justified true beliefs which must be supported by evidence and rational justifications.

In near pure intuition came forth almost impossibly verifiable truths.
Any examples for this?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Meno_ » Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:50 pm

Intuition is embedded in common sense, as the Newton example attests to. Therefore prima facie, even if its only a trigger, it works to reveal a hidden sense of truth.

It is verifiable as trigger, by such revelation of the demonstration of its hidden common sense.

Common sense hidden, belies its fasticity. by its uncommonly
truthful hidenneds. Does this not hide the underlying tautology of its reality?

Newton's theory was not adequately verified , and the common sense proven wrong, until lately when in the best vacuum chamber the experiment of dropping a very heavy and a very light object were used. The common sense disbelief still perpetuates. In fact, Einstein totally disproved that commonly held belief.
Meno_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3511
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2015 2:39 am
Location: Mysterium Tremendum

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:21 pm

When the status-quo is about a precise definition (if properly stated) then it is a matter of the language we are using. It is not about any belief concerning any proposed "truth", merely the proper use of the words involved. If you are trying to make a point concerning innate, absolute values of objects, use the right words to express it. That is all I am saying.

I am not talking about mainstream one way or another. I am talking about what the words mean. And the word "value" refers to something assigned by people to other things (as pointed out in the dictionary). If you are referring to something else, use a word or phrase that means what you mean to say.

I am not talking about mainstream one way or another. I am talking about what the words mean. And the word "value" refers to something assigned by people to other things (as pointed out in the dictionary). If you are referring to something else, use a word or phrase that means what you mean to say.

But your trying to force “standard” understandings of words on me is unnecessarily restrictive and moot. Words have shades of meaning. I’m aware that in some cases I use words in an unorthodox manner. So what? You didn’t make up your own set of words in presenting RM, you drew from the same pool everyone does. Words carry meaning, and I attempt (like anyone who has an unorthodox view) to manoeuvre meanings into semantic structures appropriate to validate the unconventional use of the language. And what I present isn’t nearly as off the mark as you suggest; value, true, false are all used in descriptive language every day. Have you never input a “value” into an equation using the language of spatiotemporal reality [math]? Aquinas freely substituted descriptive terms into prescriptive, e.g., that blindness is an “evil” which denies the good of sight. Why would the Scholastics be allowed this liberty with words and not others? We all use word meanings to convey analogies.

Take affectance. How come you can manipulate language to present your ideas but I can’t? Maybe it’s because you’ve done a lot of work to formulate a philosophically acceptable ontology in AO, which justifies the unusual usage. If so, you have me there: being self-educated I don’t feel pressured to maintain philosophical precision (which is actually in constant flux and change anyway). I have no scholastic structure or peer scrutiny within academia. I know enough to be aware of some of the philosophical do’s and don’ts…but the metaphysic of truth I use was developed in trying to figure out a theological problem anyway, not do philosophy. I’ve tried to learn the rules and stick to them as best I can, but in the end the metaphysic as preface to a particular theology is my main aim. All the same, I feel your and Prismatic’s attempts to force confinement to current standards (yours in word usage, his in forcing “proper” philosophical definitions) are non sequiturs with regard to making arguments.

I was expressing that the ONLY source and formation of "value" is from minds. There is no other kind. And that is to say that a rock, for example, has no value whatsoever unless a mind assigns a value to it. The rock did not have value until a mind chose that it be so. It doesn't matter WHY a mind might do that. That is a different issue (involving PHT if you recall).

I agree with you, but there are others who would argue that minds aren’t needed. surreptitious75 asked in an earlier post, “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.” I’ve always felt that someone could use a non-theistic account of truth that would be expressed in just the way surreptitious75 framed it.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Thu Dec 28, 2017 9:04 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:But your trying to force “standard” understandings of words on me is unnecessarily restrictive and moot. Words have shades of meaning. I’m aware that in some cases I use words in an unorthodox manner. So what? You didn’t make up your own set of words in presenting RM, you drew from the same pool everyone does. Words carry meaning, and I attempt (like anyone who has an unorthodox view) to manoeuvre meanings into semantic structures appropriate to validate the unconventional use of the language. And what I present isn’t nearly as off the mark as you suggest; value, true, false are all used in descriptive language every day. Have you never input a “value” into an equation using the language of spatiotemporal reality [math]? Aquinas freely substituted descriptive terms into prescriptive, e.g., that blindness is an “evil” which denies the good of sight. Why would the Scholastics be allowed this liberty with words and not others? We all use word meanings to convey analogies.

If you are trying to speak in metaphor, simile, analogy, or just general poetry, twists and nuance expressions are good. But if you want to convey a philosophic meaning and you use nonstandard definitions without ensuring that you are understood, you merely confuse the reader and often yourself. The reader believes that you are wrong in what you meant to say, because he reads a different meaning into it than you intended. The word "value" already has a meaning. Why are you changing it into something else?

If your intent is to be a nihilist and confuse the language so as to disrupt and destroy society, then yeah, screwing with the meanings of the words is one way; "good means bad", "right means wrong", "left means right", "woman means man", "red means mauve", "value means innate characteristic", and so on. Why not allow some clocks to run backwards from standard? Why not have some meters longer than others? If you want to appear wrong, or simply spread irrationality around for fun, then refuse any standards in communication. Why else pretend to be speaking English (like Prism)? They call it "Babylon".

Why do you think there are so very many sects within each religion? They didn't use lexicons to ensure that everyone understood what they really meant by what they said. Imagine all of the fuss that would never have risen if they had bothered to have an original lexicon in the back of each book.

That's "why".

Anomaly654 wrote:Take affectance. How come you can manipulate language to present your ideas but I can’t? Maybe it’s because you’ve done a lot of work to formulate a philosophically acceptable ontology in AO, which justifies the unusual usage.

No. The word "affectance" had a meaning before I adopted it. But that meaning was used merely by psychologists when referring to subtle affects upon infants. Physics had no word for what I was expressing. So I extended that exact same meaning so as to speak of ALL subtle affects upon anything. I didn't change the word as much as expanded its use. When speaking to a psychologist, I still mean the same thing as he meant prior - "subtle affects". And when speaking to an ontologist, it is affects-upon-affects. When speaking to a physicist, I translate it into the subtle affects of "Ultra-minuscule electromagnetic radiation". Of course, when I first began, I didn't know that my affects-upon-affects was the same thing as ultra-minuscule EMR. I had to logically prove that later.

So my use of the language is a different kind of issue. I clarify, solidify, and expand the standard, not disrupt or destroy it. That is the Vishnu/ Krishna/ Christ way ("Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce...").

Anomaly654 wrote: philosophical precision (which is actually in constant flux and change anyway).

Not as much as you have been led to believe. There is a war currently going on. A war of persuassion and remolding of Man. A part of that war is convincing children that old is wrong and must be destroyed (including the languages) and change is good (although not mention to what it is to change .. because that would be bad).

Anomaly654 wrote: I’ve tried to learn the rules and stick to them as best I can, but in the end the metaphysic as preface to a particular theology is my main aim.

How are you going to communicate that theology if the words are scrambled? And if the words are scrambled, how do you even know if you got it right? Don't you still need to communicate to others for verification if nothing else?

Anomaly654 wrote:
I was expressing that the ONLY source and formation of "value" is from minds. There is no other kind. And that is to say that a rock, for example, has no value whatsoever unless a mind assigns a value to it. The rock did not have value until a mind chose that it be so. It doesn't matter WHY a mind might do that. That is a different issue (involving PHT if you recall).

I agree with you, but there are others who would argue that minds aren’t needed.

WHAT??? After all of that?
:lol:

Anomaly654 wrote: surreptitious75 asked in an earlier post, “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.” I’ve always felt that someone could use a non-theistic account of truth that would be expressed in just the way surreptitious75 framed it.

Yes, and they all lead to the same "road to the abyss" by gradually modifying the language into self-referential, very pliable, fantasies preached as core science and truth. Solipsists and "subjectivists" are nihilists, but not everyone realizes what road they are on and what train they are fueling. Most people are the product of the propaganda, not actually having minds of their own, but not realizing it.
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 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:16 pm

You miss my critical point…you have missed, "from other philosophical sources on the term 'truth'."

Since you are in a philosophical forum, the ultimate is for you [me and others] to do a literature review and exhaust as much as possible the topic of 'what is truth'. I have made a point to strive to achieve this.

No, I think I zeroed in pretty well on your “critical point”. You’re trying to force current views on me as absolutes beyond which I’m not, in your estimation, allowed to argue. You’re not alone, Prism; lots of folks try to trap others in the status quo box. It scores points [superficially, not actually] and makes it easier for one to advance his own agenda unencumbered if you can force the other guy to argue in ways that profit you in the argument. Actually, this is why I typically don't waste time arguing with atheists--the atheist position is circular: "The rule for debate is that the only things that are real are those in time and space. Now come, tell me all about your God." If you can stack the deck by making others adhere to your epistemic rules, you'll always win. It's a human thing; I’m sure I do it too, though try to stay aware and avoid.

Holding to rigorous philosophical standards are fine when discussing philosophy. Maybe you didn’t notice this is the “Religion and Spirituality” section? Please, stop trying to force unnecessary rules on the discussion. Keeps it more real, right?

…when it comes to Metaphysics and philosophy, a theist will be default bring in God

And an atheist will default to no God. So what?

you point 3, have you considered the argumentum ad populum fallacy

I’ve spent many years debating fellow theists on theological points, long enough to see the very common “smoke and mirrors” approach used to “refute” truths they’re uncomfortable facing. In fact, as the spiritual mechanics of truth was developing I began to look for just the sort of folks who displayed the highest tendencies to respond to truth in this way and entered debates to test the theory in practice. Recognizing by your own tendencies that you were a likely candidate (the principles apply to all people but some are more predisposed than others) I placed this reference in my last post:
The analytical methods that can be drawn from the op might even suitably anticipate forthcoming responses in this thread.

…so if the opportunity presented itself I could offer a demonstration of the principles at work. As expected, you participated. Let me explain.

The natural enmity produced in cognition between micro-level truth and falsity can be verified in how people respond to truths they don’t want to “hear”. Falsification at certain levels produces discord in response to true prescriptive propositions. These incidents are relatively uncomplicated to predict, we recognize them intuitively as evidenced by some of the clichés we use, e.g., “The truth hurts, doesn’t it?”. Like many I’ve tested in the past, you followed a predictable path in reaction to the straightforward proof I provided that your proposal that God is an impossibility is demonstrably false.

You skirted answering the proof offered because falsity in sufficient quantity exists in the soul to produce the f^f union. This union produces the strongest responses to propositional truth—as in your scramble to push the misleading and incorrect argumentum ad populum fallacy at the evidence provided in order to wriggle out from under the pressure imposed by the truth of rebuttal. You then added the padding of several more sentences of drivel to your response—a common attempt to remove focus from an inability to rebut by drowning [hiding] the topic in a sea of linguistic ambiguity. We sometimes feel if we throw enough words at our opponents the effect will be to wash away focus on the issue with excess verbiage.

Your charge of argumentum ad populum is notably false because my point that God is among the most objectively discussed topics on earth is not an appeal to its popularity as proof, it’s a simple, irrefutable fact demonstrating that the concept “God” contains objectively accessed information, whereas impossibilities (as was amply demonstrated) do not. Your trying to mask this as an appeal to the popularity of the concept is precisely the sort of response falsification would produce in an agent occupying a reality in which human cognition and the beliefs and behaviours that follow are driven predominantly by value inherent in the essence of things.

I’m not singling you out Prismatic. The principles of a falsified essence holds equally true for anyone who stubbornly holds falsehood as truth. We all suffer from the same cognitively debilitating effect of falsification. It hampers descriptive understanding and overpowers rationality in intellectual processing of prescriptive matters. It also affords a degree of predictability in observation of moral and ethical reactions, responses and the behaviours that follow from them.

When the principles laid out in the op are put into theoretical operation the content of certain kinds of responses can be predicted, as for example your parting commentary:
I have mentioned somewhere,
there are tons of research relating to how the idea of God manifest in the minds of SOME people, e.g. the mentally sick, the brain damage, those taking drugs, chemicals, hallucinogen, various diseases, electronic brain stimulation etc.
(I have provided links to the above in some other posts)
These actual evidences and findings provide strong clues that the idea of God is a resultant of brain activity than a God existing as real within empirical-rational reality.

The evidence speaks for itself.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby Anomaly654 » Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:32 pm

The word "affectance" had a meaning before I adopted it. But that meaning was used merely by psychologists when referring to subtle affects upon infants.


Of course it did...just as the words I use have various meanings. You adapted the word to your usage. So do I adapt words to my usage. This isn't to me an important issue James. If you or others find my use of terms cumbersome and are unable or unwilling to overcome juggling different meanings for common words [though how one would get along in the world with this problem given the multiple meanings common to most words would be puzzling], there's not much I can do about it. I'm more interested in hearing constructive criticism. I appreciate that you've challenged me to show how I can justify uniting the meanings of value-force/energy. This certainly needs work, will have to delve further into study to try to clarify my thoughts and meet the challenge.
User avatar
Anomaly654
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:55 pm

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 7:33 pm

Anomaly654 wrote: I'm more interested in hearing constructive criticism. I appreciate that you've challenged me to show how I can justify uniting the meanings of value-force/energy. This certainly needs work, will have to delve further into study to try to clarify my thoughts and meet the challenge.

  • Value = assigned worth relating to a desire
  • Value = innate virtue of objects
  • Value = force/energy
These are 3 very different concepts for merely one word.

It can validly be said that the worth assigned to objects is effectively a force within the mind or in society, thus allowing for a union of the concepts within that limited scope. But where there is no mind involved, there can be no assigned worth and thus the three concepts remain very distinct and a single word should not be used for all 3.

Fixed Cross has been promoting his "Value Ontology" founded on the idea that all objects exist solely because of the virtue of being "self-valuing". Typically the first comment everyone makes when hearing the theory is that "objects do not assign value so there can be no self-valuing". He tried to explain that he doesn't intend the word to be used in that mind-only way, but as a more philosophical, universal way. This has been going on for years and still happens.

His intent is that of a politician or social engineer, persuading emotional affect by substantiating the concept of self concern over concern for others (Judaist over Christian). He appropriately professes to be Nietzschean. But his efforts are thwarted by the fact that he is altering a word's meaning, not merely expanding its use. The first issue is to at least get the language clearly what others accept. The more serious challenge in propagating his intent would come well after he managed to get far beyond where he has already been stumped.

Your intent appears to be similar (although perhaps less Nietzschean) and will suffer the same thwarted propagation.

More influential people have promoted a similar skewing of the language (and for identical reasons) such as to alter the meaning of "reality" from meaning "objective or absolute existence" into meaning "relative perception of existence" (aka "God doesn't exist", "Truth is whatever you believe it to be", "Magick is real"), utilizing Einstein's Relativity Ontology (although already proven to be limited and thus not true to reality). Such opens the gate for word games to be used in social-engineering, manipulating people into targeted conflicts and wars.

^^^--- "constructive criticism".
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 James S Saint » Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:11 pm

Anomaly654 wrote:rebut by drowning [hiding] the topic in a sea of linguistic ambiguity.

:lol:
I'm going to have to remember that phrase, "sea of linguistic ambiguity" - how perfectly appropriate. =D>
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 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:20 am

Anomaly654 wrote:
You miss my critical point…you have missed, "from other philosophical sources on the term 'truth'."

Since you are in a philosophical forum, the ultimate is for you [me and others] to do a literature review and exhaust as much as possible the topic of 'what is truth'. I have made a point to strive to achieve this.

No, I think I zeroed in pretty well on your “critical point”.
Again you missed the point.
Earlier you condemned my references as restricted to Wiki and SEP re the question of 'What is Truth'.
I replied my sources re What is Truth is not restricted to Wiki and SEP but critically "from other philosophical sources on the term 'truth'." It is not convenient for me to refer you to a Bibliography specifically to 'what is truth' thus my quick reference to Wiki and SEP.

Btw, have you done an extensive research [literature review] on 'what is truth' from the philosophical database [Western, Eastern, etc.]?
If you have not done that what sort of credibility can you claim on the topic of 'truth' as in your OP?




You’re trying to force current views on me as absolutes beyond which I’m not, in your estimation, allowed to argue. You’re not alone, Prism; lots of folks try to trap others in the status quo box. It scores points [superficially, not actually] and makes it easier for one to advance his own agenda unencumbered if you can force the other guy to argue in ways that profit you in the argument. Actually, this is why I typically don't waste time arguing with atheists--the atheist position is circular: "The rule for debate is that the only things that are real are those in time and space. Now come, tell me all about your God." If you can stack the deck by making others adhere to your epistemic rules, you'll always win. It's a human thing; I’m sure I do it too, though try to stay aware and avoid.
Note I am not forcing the rule at all.

I had claimed all truth are conditioned to their specific Framework and System, e.g. Science has its Scientific Method and System, so thus Economics, Mathematics, Physics, Legal, etc.
Legal truths cannot be Scientific truths per se and vice-versa.

What is critical is one must be aware of the Framework and System one is relying on to declare one's truth.
Thus if you claim God exists, then you have to qualify what Framework and System you are using, e.g. empirical, reason, empirical-rational, theological, philosophical or your own. For each Framework and System, one has to stick to its requirements.

The point is the basis for God is SOLELY psychological and thus when theists attempt to squeeze this psychological based inference into other Frameworks, there are holes and a mess. It is like trying to force square pegs to fit into round holes.

Holding to rigorous philosophical standards are fine when discussing philosophy. Maybe you didn’t notice this is the “Religion and Spirituality” section? Please, stop trying to force unnecessary rules on the discussion. Keeps it more real, right?
Yes, this is the “Religion and Spirituality” section, BUT within a Philosophy Forum.



…when it comes to Metaphysics and philosophy, a theist will be default bring in God

And an atheist will default to no God. So what?
When theists bring in their god into the argument, it goes nowhere because god is groundless and illusory.

As for non-theists, they will have to justify whatever claims they made within the requirements of the specific Framework and System involved. If a non-theist make a scientific claim then they must bring scientific proofs, if legal as in a murder case -then evidence, etc.

you point 3, have you considered the argumentum ad populum fallacy

I’ve spent many years debating fellow theists on theological points, long enough to see the very common “smoke and mirrors” approach used to “refute” truths they’re uncomfortable facing. In fact, as the spiritual mechanics of truth was developing I began to look for just the sort of folks who displayed the highest tendencies to respond to truth in this way and entered debates to test the theory in practice. Recognizing by your own tendencies that you were a likely candidate (the principles apply to all people but some are more predisposed than others) I placed this reference in my last post:
The analytical methods that can be drawn from the op might even suitably anticipate forthcoming responses in this thread.

…so if the opportunity presented itself I could offer a demonstration of the principles at work. As expected, you participated. Let me explain.

The natural enmity produced in cognition between micro-level truth and falsity can be verified in how people respond to truths they don’t want to “hear”. Falsification at certain levels produces discord in response to true prescriptive propositions. These incidents are relatively uncomplicated to predict, we recognize them intuitively as evidenced by some of the clichés we use, e.g., “The truth hurts, doesn’t it?”. Like many I’ve tested in the past, you followed a predictable path in reaction to the straightforward proof I provided that your proposal that God is an impossibility is demonstrably false.

You skirted answering the proof offered because falsity in sufficient quantity exists in the soul to produce the f^f union. This union produces the strongest responses to propositional truth—as in your scramble to push the misleading and incorrect argumentum ad populum fallacy at the evidence provided in order to wriggle out from under the pressure imposed by the truth of rebuttal. You then added the padding of several more sentences of drivel to your response—a common attempt to remove focus from an inability to rebut by drowning [hiding] the topic in a sea of linguistic ambiguity. We sometimes feel if we throw enough words at our opponents the effect will be to wash away focus on the issue with excess verbiage.

Your charge of argumentum ad populum is notably false because my point that God is among the most objectively discussed topics on earth is not an appeal to its popularity as proof, it’s a simple, irrefutable fact demonstrating that the concept “God” contains objectively accessed information, whereas impossibilities (as was amply demonstrated) do not. Your trying to mask this as an appeal to the popularity of the concept is precisely the sort of response falsification would produce in an agent occupying a reality in which human cognition and the beliefs and behaviours that follow are driven predominantly by value inherent in the essence of things.

I’m not singling you out Prismatic. The principles of a falsified essence holds equally true for anyone who stubbornly holds falsehood as truth. We all suffer from the same cognitively debilitating effect of falsification. It hampers descriptive understanding and overpowers rationality in intellectual processing of prescriptive matters. It also affords a degree of predictability in observation of moral and ethical reactions, responses and the behaviours that follow from them.

When the principles laid out in the op are put into theoretical operation the content of certain kinds of responses can be predicted, as for example your parting commentary:
You have not shown you have a good grounding on 'what is truth' philosophically, that is why I did not address your proofs at all.
I had claim your OP is misplaced and will be going no where.

Your claim of "smokes and mirror" with theists and others do not apply to me.
My approach is based on proper evidence and sound arguments and very direct which are open to criticisms.

I have mentioned somewhere,
there are tons of research relating to how the idea of God manifest in the minds of SOME people, e.g. the mentally sick, the brain damage, those taking drugs, chemicals, hallucinogen, various diseases, electronic brain stimulation etc.
(I have provided links to the above in some other posts)
These actual evidences and findings provide strong clues that the idea of God is a resultant of brain activity than a God existing as real within empirical-rational reality.

The evidence speaks for itself.
Not sure of your point here.

You mean the evidence I provided speaks for the fact that the idea of God arose out of psychological factors in the brain/mind. Thus God do not exists as real within an empirical-rational reality?


Btw, I am not interested in your OP, The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth because it makes no sense philosophically. This was why I avoided your subsequent response earlier. I think it would be more effective [philosophically] to establish 'what is truth' first.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:08 am

Anomaly, you have to forgive Prism, he can't understand "ontology and epistemology" so he says, "Framework and System". And apparently he wants people to believe that "truth" is just whatever agrees with the reigning ontology and epistemology. There is no standard for which these ontologies must conform because that would imply a single Reality above the preachings of Man, a "God". And he, being entirely antisemitic, loaths the thought of God. He believes in "making knowledge" rather than "discovering knowledge" (the over feminized new-age culture).
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 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:30 am

James S Saint wrote:Anomaly, you have to forgive Prism, he can't understand "ontology and epistemology" so he says, "Framework and System". And apparently he wants people to believe that "truth" is just whatever agrees with the reigning ontology and epistemology. There is no standard for which these ontologies must conform because that would imply a single Reality above the preachings of Man, a "God". And he, being entirely antisemitic, loaths the thought of God. He believes in "making knowledge" rather than "discovering knowledge" (the over feminized new-age culture).
The above is another evidence why I insist your philosophical knowledge is very shallow and narrow. Don't blame me for saying such truths when you post the above condescending views.

Wiki wrote:Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.[1] Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. A very simple definition of ontology is that it is the examination of what is meant, in context, by the word 'thing'.


The above ontology is not equivalent to my concept of 'Framework and System'.
The point is to deal with 'ontology' and 'epistemology' there is a need to start with a Framework and System' before arriving at any truths re 'ontology' and 'epistemology.'

Scientific Knowledge [different from ontology] will need its own 'Framework and System' i.e. the Scientific Method, its assumptions, limitations, principles, consensus process, peer reviews, etc.
The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics which is a different field in philosophy from Metaphysics and epistemology will require its specific 'Framework and System.'
ALL fields of knowledge and truths will require its 'Framework and System' this is how we have the typical 'Philosophy of [anything]' where one must understand the fundamental 'Framework and System' of that philosophy.

I suggest you go back to start from kindergarten Philosophy and progress from there, then only if you can graduate, to critique my philosophical points.

It is because theists are ignorant and do not have a map of the inherent Framework and Systems of theism that they missed the fundamental element of theism, i.e. the critical psychological impulses ['zombie parasite] that drive them to theism.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

Postby James S Saint » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:05 am

Prismatic567 wrote:
Wiki wrote:Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.[1] Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. A very simple definition of ontology is that it is the examination of what is meant, in context, by the word 'thing'.


The above ontology is not equivalent to my concept of 'Framework and System'.
The point is to deal with 'ontology' and 'epistemology' there is a need to start with a Framework and System' before arriving at any truths re 'ontology' and 'epistemology.'

Then you are probably using the wrong meaning for "Framework and System". Try looking up "epistemology" this time, see if that better fits what you mean. If not, you really need to define your unique language.
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 » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:28 am

James S Saint wrote:Then you are probably using the wrong meaning for "Framework and System". Try looking up "epistemology" this time, see if that better fits what you mean. If not, you really need to define your unique language.
Epistemology refer to the Philosophy of Knowledge.

To establish what is knowledge there is a need for a Framework and System.

Note I have already explained in my earlier post by what is meant by Framework and System.
Here again,

Scientific Knowledge [different from ontology] will need its own 'Framework and System' i.e. the Scientific Method, its assumptions, limitations, principles, consensus process, peer reviews, etc.
The Philosophy of Morality and Ethics which is a different field in philosophy from Metaphysics and epistemology will require its specific 'Framework and System.'
ALL fields of knowledge and truths will require its 'Framework and System' this is how we have the typical 'Philosophy of [anything]' where one must understand the fundamental 'Framework and System' of that philosophy.


Without the necessary scientific Framework and System, there is no scientific knowledge.
Why a particular knowledge is called scientific is because it complies with all the requirements of the scientific framework and system, mainly the Scientific Method, peer review and the default assumptions, the specific assumptions of the theory, etc.

Knowledge that claim to be scientific but do not comply with the scientific Framework and System are called pseudo-scientific knowledge.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]