Truth

[Alaric593]

Until I allowed myself to feel, I couldn't understand feelings.

 

[Slim Jim]

"What is truth"? - said some roman politician, a few thousand years ago.

 

[Alaric593]

"What is truth"? - said some roman politician, a few thousand years ago.

The best I can describe it as is premises that when applied in action will manifest the expected outcome in the manner it was expected.

 

[Knower of nothing]

Truth?

 

[Orange Glasses]

Alaric593 -

I really like that book. Did you make it yourself?

 

[Alaric593]

Truth?

Truth isn't a matter of perspective. Truth requires application of premises to be determined.

The human mind can conjure all manner of nonsense. We've all been there. What determines whether something is Truth, is the application of the premises manifests the expected outcome in the manner in which it was expected.

Without application, thought is a useless endeavor; mental masterbation. Only through application can Truth discovered. Perspective is merely a thought about what senses are telling us.

The person who wrote the symbol knows the Truth of which he wrote. That the viewers are stuck in perspective, doesn't change there is a Truth as to which it is.

 

[Alaric593]

Alaric593 -

I really like that book. Did you make it yourself?

I didn't. A friend sent it to me.

 

[Slim Jim]

Allowed to feel though? I thought what you feel, is an autonomic thing. If you are angry or fearful or whatever, can you really allow or dissalow it? Thats sounds like the ego trying to rush in and assert authority.
(Ego to Amygdala: "I must stop this now!!" Only it can't really, cause emotions are the hot part of the brain, the core; limbic system, and the 'cool' side, "the canopy," cortex, thats sits upon it, is the weaker, less dominant part. It certainly can't prevent it, only suppress it, or down-regulate it at best.)

Yeah emotions, feeling, thats all just a part of being alive.

Plus there's the expectation of society, you are supposed to control your emotions. Otherwise you are considered immature. Uncouth, or just not socialized sufficiently.

And if you 'feel your feelings', maybe you would drown in them. That's why its frowned upon, I guess, you become non-productive, aka not efficient.

And I would say what you describing is an "axiom." I'm quibbling now...

 

[Sunny1]

Thank you. That helps.

 

[Knower of nothing]

Truth isn't a matter of perspective. Truth requires application of premises to be determined.

The human mind can conjure all manner of nonsense. We've all been there. What determines whether something is Truth, is the application of the premises manifests the expected outcome in the manner in which it was expected.

Without application, thought is a useless endeavor; mental masterbation. Only through application can Truth discovered. Perspective is merely a thought about what senses are telling us.

The person who wrote the symbol knows the Truth of which he wrote. That the viewers are stuck in perspective, doesn't change there is a Truth as to which it is.

The cartoon isn't questioning its existence but its value. Doesn't matter what the truth is if it can never be known, rendering any functional interpretation valid and worthy of consideration. Inventing a symbol writer to conjure a right answer into being is no solution and an appeal to authority. What we have is not understanding but the functional applicability of simplified abstract models. People were able to reliably make fire far before understanding the processes that make it so. But I'm sure they had some approximation of an explanation all the same. The point of our baseless claims is utility. And utility we have. Even the image in the OP has utility, despite being an irrational link drawn from an imperfect translation of an imperfect memory of an experience the mechanics of which were not understood. I confidently predict you're wearing underwear the first time you read this sentence. Yet it's an irrational claim all the same. Truth is just not that important outside of edge cases that most people really aren't involved with. Personally I think it's meant to be an eye.

 

[Thinx]

Perspectives are often relevant to our communication though. We have to acknowledge that on a smaller scale than Universal Truths, there can be perspectives in day to day life that differ and are not usually effectively resolved by appeals to higher truths. We know what we know, for ourselves, but how to get along when someone else is just giving their perspective? Humility is key I think, there.

 

[Alaric593]

Perspectives are often relevant to our communication though. We have to acknowledge that on a smaller scale than Universal Truths, there can be perspectives in day to day life that differ and are not usually effectively resolved by appeals to higher truths. We know what we know, for ourselves, but how to get along when someone else is just giving their perspective? Humility is key I think, there.

I agree. But that different perspectives exist doesn't negate the existence of Truth. Perspective is just the initial response to stimuli that brings up the question. Whether people want to dig down into it and then apply what they believe about that perspective to see if it's True is another matter entirely.

It's quite difficult and often intensely painful get to Truth of any kind which is why many just agree to disagree, because it pulls at the threads of our operating presuppositions.

But that one doesn't want to pull at the threads of perspective, doesn't mean there isn't a Truth to be discovered.

The Post-Modern concept that everything is relative to perspective is not humility, but arrogance. It's the rejection of further information because we're comfortable in our perspective so no one can reason us out of it.

I'm just as guilty as any in that arrogance. But find utility at minimum of pushing back against the premise when a situation presents itself.

 

[Slim Jim]

Quantum Theory says everything is dependent on the observer, neuroscientists say everything is perspective. Our brains perceive a reality, (wave frequencies,)through the senses, and construct a reality, in the consciousness, for e.g. colour exists not outside of us, but as a by-product of our perception. If you're colourblind, and I'm not. You see one thing, I see another. If you say the sky is blue, How true is that really? What does truth even mean in this context, when Scientist say we hallucinate reality, and that universe might be a hologram, and there's multiverse, and multidimensions. There are 'axioms, you can depend on, that's useful in science, yeah, but Truth is philosophical concept. That's when things get complicated.

 

[Thinx]

I agree. But that different perspectives exist doesn't negate the existence of Truth. Perspective is just the initial response to stimuli that brings up the question. Whether people want to dig down into it and then apply what they believe about that perspective to see if it's True is another matter entirely.

It's quite difficult and often intensely painful get to Truth of any kind which is why many just agree to disagree, because it pulls at the threads of our operating presuppositions.

But that one doesn't want to pull at the threads of perspective, doesn't mean there isn't a Truth to be discovered.

The Post-Modern concept that everything is relative to perspective is not humility, but arrogance. It's the rejection of further information because we're comfortable in our perspective so no one can reason us out of it.

I'm just as guilty as any in that arrogance. But find utility at minimum of pushing back against the premise when a situation presents itself.

Well I try not to apply negative terms to other's perspective, as I respect them, and may one day have that perspective too. Perspective made for changing, development and growth, hopefully they don't stay static, and my work has often been to help couples see that their different perspectives are worthy of further discussion and examination. Not least so they understand the other's perspective and where it comes from. You have shown a lot of understanding of your partner's perspectives, so useful in communication.

I like the truth that we all may have perspectives, though they may be ripe for change, they are a starting point.

 

[Atrapa Almas]

Truth, Justice, Fairness, Cruelty, Compassion...

All those concepts seems to exist in human minds, maybe also in some others animals minds. They are not like Force, Mass, Momentum, Temperature. They cant be observed not meassured by science, sensors or any other objective means. There is no clear scale to messure them, non they have "truthness" units so make "Truth" calculations. Its instead a blurry concept that can only be recognized by the same minds who believe in them.

So "Truth" is not an objective truth, but a common believe shared mostly by human minds. Its interesting how for humans, our mental models are more important to determine reality that the sensory imput we actually recieve from the real world.

How many people have died because their mental models of God did not matched with other humans mentals models of God?

I liked the feelings book. I share that experience too. The more I focus on my feelings and myself, the better I become at being aware on how I am and what I am feeling. Its a cute art too.

 

[Wolfnox]

There are something's I know to be true. That other people would not believe or flat out deny. It is the truth. But, not one others are ready for or willing to accept as truth. Which makes it an inconvenient truth.
Others are seeing to believe truths.

 

[Rodafina]

I am really fascinated by this topic and this conversation. There are interesting perspectives here.

@Alaric593, In your thinking, who determines the premises?

 

[Alaric593]

I am really fascinated by this topic and this conversation. There are interesting perspectives here.

@Alaric593, In your thinking, who determines the premises?

The question raised as a result of the stimuli from our senses. In this case, our sight, as we're reading the words as well as interpretating what the state of the yarn on each side means in relation to what's written.

In the case of the picture I posted in the OP, "The more you feel your feelings the easier it is to understand them" is reflexively turned into a question as to whether that is the case when it is read, "Is it easier to understand my feelings the more I feel them?"

Left page, feelings are complicated and tangled together making them difficult to understand. Right page, feeling our feelings untangles them from each other allowing them to be understood individually.

However, the more you feel your feelings the easier it is to understand them is in and of itself the Premise.

Some stay in perspective and intuitively agree or disagree derived from past empirical experience. We all do this regularly and there's nothing generally wrong with it because many questions our minds manifest in relation to premises we come across have little to no functional impact or application in our daily lives so our presuppositions derived from empirical knowledge in experience answers it as True or False with no further inquiry and we move on, often oblivious to the process having taken place. These premise however, does have functional and practical impact if True and the only way to determine that, is to test it.

A person said to have "common sense", sound judgment in practical matters, is having said of them that their perception of a premise or premises was correct, they didn't need to form a hypothesis based on that premise and their reasoning as to why it was True or False were in alignment because their conclusion as to the premise or premises manifested in the real world when applied to action. They didn't require further inquiry to reason through it to determine the Truth of the matter. In practice, it's True because their actions manifested the conclusion proving it true.

But in cases where the question raised from the premise as to whether it is True interests someone and they don't have the Knowledge, they then form a hypothesis that may explain why it is True and begin the process of investigating to prove it. But it must be tested.

My house exists is a True premise because the actions to build it manifested the conclusion of the processes to test if it could be True. Can my house be built? I don't know, let's build it with these plans(hypothesis) and see if it could be True. That it was built necessarily means it could be built, therefore my house existing is True.

Premises have some basis in logical understanding as True.
Hypotheses derived from a premise as to why it is True, will need to be proved in testing.

The other premise raised by the meme of the men viewing a symbol that could be read as a 6 or a 9 is that what is True is a matter of perception.

The premise that Truth is a matter of perception has some basis for Truth as claimed by the people asserting 6 or 9 because they're viewing the symbol from different perspectives. Just as the tangled and untangled yarn provided some logical basis for the premise being True. The question is then "Does perception determine what is True?"

The same applies as from the OP premise, some reflexively answer True or False based on experience while others find the question interesting and form a hypotheses as to why it is True which needs to be proved.

I needed no further inquiry as to the premise of either meme. Both are
common sense.

Talk therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy and all others related to dealing with the Self as a complex emotional being struggling with understanding what is driving our behaviors and why, exists solely on the premise that to understand your feelings is to feel your feelings, to use them.The academic literature on this could choke a blue whale. The question I do ask myself though, is why didn't I understand this before a few years ago? It's Self-evident, common sense.

All professional specialization is based on the premise that to do, is to be. By that I mean, I am an IP paralegal because I have done that which is required to understand IP law to apply it through the processes of working as an IP paralegal.

I could not be an IP paralegal without knowing the processes and applying the knowledge through processes of IP law.

In high school, I was a baseball player because I had done what was required to understand baseball to apply that knowledge through the process of being a baseball player. I could not be a baseball player without doing that which makes a baseball player.

Everything humans do puts within us the empirical and rational knowledge required to do it again and better each time we do it. The idiom "Practice makes perfect" is derived from this fact. But rational knowledge that is not testable to determine if it's empirically True, is useless mental masterbation.

To do any action is the conclusion of a process, not just that single act. There's x number of preconditions that had to be met for Michael Jordan to be able to slam dunk from the free throw line over multiple men trying to stop him. He didn't just fall out of the womb dunking on people.

Just as until we go through the process of feeling, we can't understand feeling. To understand a feeling is to have gone through the process of feeling it. It can be no other way. It's True.

Why the premise of the perception meme is faulty is because of what is not in the meme; the man who drew the symbol and how. The two men are not using common sense because they're not exercising sound judgment in practical matters.

They're making claims about whether their perception of a symbol is True instead of reasoning that they can't know because they did not write it and do not have access to the person who did. To Know, is to do.

These memes are an interesting contrast as to Epistemology, how humans derive Knowledge. Empiricism v Rationalism

The premise of the feelings meme can be determined True because the premise is based on that which can be done in the process of action, therefore it can be tested and has been countless times in every human being, and those who have done it, Know it to be True. It's Empirical knowledge.

The premise of the perception meme can't be tested in the real world because there's nothing to apply to determine the Truth of the matter. The person who wrote the symbol isn't there, nothing can be deduced that anyone else did or they did, and there's no cameras. They're mentally masterbating in reasoning without regard as to whether the premise can even be tested to determined True.

The perception meme is actually a claim that Rationalism is not the source of human Knowledge but rather Empiricism, the feelings meme. Because only that which can go through the process of testing can ever be determined True. The rest is mental masterbation. It may be interesting, but it holds no practical purpose.

This is where fundamentalist Christians and atheists who argue with each other are lost in the same one row cornfield together. They're reading the Bible as a matter of mental masterbation in rationalism. Literal word of God to be taken as True v people do not rise from the grave therefore the claims are False and the religion rests on those claims therefore the religion is False; taking it literally just like the fundamentalist Christians.

When the Truth of Christianity can only be determined by the practical application of the premises prescribed by Christ which are the precondition to be a Christian. These can be tested and whether when applied if they produce the expected outcome; cause and effect. Whether Christianity is True is a matter of Empirical Knowledge in application of the claims on what to do, to be a Christian, not untestable perceptions of rationalism.

 

[Rodafina]

@Alaric593, Your thoughts are very interesting and also very different from my own. I appreciate the time you took to elucidate your thinking here.

I am processing what you have written, but I keep getting stuck on this point and it offers an example of two people having wildly different perspectives on truth. You keep referring to “mental masturbation,” suggesting it has no purpose practically speaking. I would argue that it can also be the exact opposite where masturbation is strictly a practical and perfunctory release of sexual energy and an adaptive way to meet basic human needs that aid in survival. In regards to “mental masturbation,“ I would argue that it is a useful way to try to make sense of the world and therefore figure out one’s place in it. If we are discussing the morality of masturbation, well then the doors are open for infinite perspectives.

I am somewhat envious of your seemingly clear thinking here. I desire Truth, because that would be comforting. I wonder if there are some immovable stones in your arguments (i.e., Christ as a setter of premises), that I would not dare go up against, because I respect your views. I agree that premises, measures, tests, and other ways to gather empirical data can help determine truth, but again the ones who create the premises, define the measures, and write the tests often have subjective influence over the results.

 

[Alaric593]

@Alaric593, Your thoughts are very interesting and also very different from my own. I appreciate the time you took to elucidate your thinking here.

I am processing what you have written, but I keep getting stuck on this point and it offers an example of two people having wildly different perspectives on truth. You keep referring to “mental masturbation,” suggesting it has no purpose practically speaking. I would argue that it can also be the exact opposite where masturbation is strictly a practical and perfunctory release of sexual energy and an adaptive way to meet basic human needs that aid in survival. In regards to “mental masturbation,“ I would argue that it is a useful way to try to make sense of the world and therefore figure out one’s place in it. If we are discussing the morality of masturbation, well then the doors are open for infinite perspectives.

I am somewhat envious of your seemingly clear thinking here. I desire Truth, because that would be comforting. I wonder if there are some immovable stones in your arguments (i.e., Christ as a setter of premises), that I would not dare go up against, because I respect your views. I agree that premises, measures, tests, and other ways to gather empirical data can help determine truth, but again the ones who create the premises, define the measures, and write the tests often have subjective influence over the results.

Without application in the real world to be tested rational premises are never tested therefore can not determined whether they're True. I can't understand why people think it's an interesting question as to whether that symbol is a 6 or a 9 because the Truth can never be determined because it's not testable. I call it mental masterbation because could argue our points for a year straight and still never Know the Truth because it's not a testable premises.

Our lives our ticking by second by second so to me arguing about a premise that isn't testable therfore can never be determined is just arrogance and ego. It's a misplaced priority that makes us feel good to flex our mental clout despite it never being possible to prove our mental clout True.

When really the mental clout is recognizing it can never be determined True and that it's therefore a waste of time to ruminate on it argumentation.

Perspective is important. But that I have a perspective on x doesn't make it True by virtue of me holding it. And that there is different perspectives certainly doesn't disprove the existence of Truth.